The Influence of the MQ-1A Predator on Modern Warfare Essay Example for Free

The Influence of the MQ-1A Predator on Modern Warfare Essay The General Atomics MQ-1B Predator is a revolutionary unmanned aerial vehicle that has changed the very nature of warfare in the United States. The MQ-1 Predator drone was initially developed as a reconnaissance aircraft for the Central Intelligence Agency, designed to be a very light vehicle with a number of intelligent sensors to stealthily gather intelligence. However, since it’s development in the early 1990s, the Predator has undergone a number of variations and upgrades to take on a multitude of roles. Specifically, the United States Air Force describes the Predator as â€Å"uniquely qualified to conduct irregular warfare operations in support of Combatant Commander objectives†[1]. As public opinion continues to favor the value of every American soldier’s life, the MQ-1B Predator has had a profound impact on the United States Armed Forces. Though the concept of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles existed almost as soon as airplanes were developed, they were severely limited in their roles until the Vietnam War. By that time, the development of the â€Å"Lightning Bug† spy planes had been sufficiently developed for use in Vietnam and southern China. The Lightning Bug drones had numerous advantages, such as various countermeasure systems, a low cost, and little risk for the controlling crew[2]. The United States used the Lightning Bug drones on over a thousand missions during the Vietnam War, though some led to an emphasis on developing new UAV programs. The Lightning Bug employed a very basic control program, the first model developed operated on a timer, and would simply turn around after a certain amount of time had elapsed. Later models could be controlled by radio, though the drones had a short control range. The largest limitation of the Frisbee was that it could not take off or land independently; it was usually launched from a DC-130 Hercules and recovered by a helicopter after its parachute had been deployed. Despite these limitation, the Lightning Bug proved to concept of UAVs to the United States. By 1984, the Defense Advanced Research Projects contracted Leading Systems Incorporated of California to create an endurance UAV codenamed â€Å"Amber. † Amber was initially designed for photographic reconnaissance, electronic counter-intelligence operations, and could be used as a cruise missile. The first Amber drones were able to fly continuously for approximately 38 hours, and successfully completed long range test flights in 1987. During the late 1980s, Congress pressured the numerous UAV programs through funding cuts, though the Amber drone survived after being incorporated into the Joint Program Office for UAV development. By 1990 however, the Amber program was cut, likely due to the abrasive personality of its director, Abraham Karem[3]. Leading Systems faced financial difficulties after the failure of the Amber program, and was bought by General Atomics. At the time of its sale, Leading Systems was developing a variation of the Amber drone named the Gnat750, which was designed as a less expensive alternative. Though its wingspan was larger than the Amber, this enabled the Gnat to weigh less but carry a larger payload. The Gnat also had an extremely long range, with an endurance of 48 or more hours. The Gnat also featured a GPS system for independent flight, as well as a configurable sensor package that could be customized for various missions[4]. In the early 1990s, the CIA order multiple Gnat 750s to gather intelligence on the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Though the Gnat was successful on its missions, software glitches caused at least one crash and the drone was discovered to be susceptible to rough weather. The Gnat was considered a success for its configurability and endurance, and General Atomics resolved to develop a new UAV. General Atomics was awarded a contract to build the RQ-1A Predator in January 1994. The Predator’s design is similar to that of the Gnat 750, with a aerodynamic fuselage with low mounted wings. The Predator is also much larger than the Gnat, with a wingspan of 55 feet and a length of 27 feet[5]. The Predator featured a sensor â€Å"turret† underneath the nose of the aircraft which enabled Infrared and Electro-Optical imaging, a laser designator was added to later models. The Predator also includes a number of datalink antennas that enables it to be controlled from the ground by line of sight radio transmission or satellite link. The antennas also allows the Predator to upload information to various other battlefield units, such as aircraft or naval vessels. This allows the Armed Forces to obtain real time intelligence on the battlefield as long as the Predator can remain in the area. The Predator can be flown by remote control from a mounted camera, or will otherwise fly in a preprogrammed path via a mounted GPS system. The range of the Predator drone is also very large, â€Å"If a Predator were flown out of San Francisco, it would be able to operate into Nevada, southern Oregon, or northwestern Mexico and monitor a 185 x 185 kilometer (115 x 115 mile) grid†[6]. The Predator first saw service over Bosnia in 1995 with the CIA; one aircraft was destroyed by the mission commander after an engine failure and another was shot down. These initial drones were handed over to the Air Force and used in numerous campaigns. In early missions, the Predator’s primary role was to designate targets for other aircraft, though inexperienced pilots often could not get support to an area quickly enough to make a difference. It was quickly decided that Predator drones would need offensive capabilities in case it needed to engage a target itself, and many were quickly outfitted with a pair of Hellfire anti-armor missiles. After successful testing, one officer in the Air Force stated that â€Å"The effectiveness was a relief nobody was quite sure that firing a Hellfire from a Predator wouldnt rip the UAVs wing right off†[7]. The newly armed Predator drones were quickly put into service with the new designation of MQ-1A. According to the US Air Force website, M is the Department of Defense designation for multi-role, while Q is designated to all UAVs. Finally, the 1 and A show that the Predator was the first modern series of UAVs widely developed by the Air Force. The widespread use of the MQ-1A Predators and its variations are attributable to successful attributes of the previous UAV programs. Like the original Lightning Bug drones, the Predator is relatively inexpensive and enjoys a long endurance time. The Predator is also able to independently take off and land like the Amber drone, and has a unique design and a customizable sensor platform like the Gnat 750. All of these aspects allow the Predator drone to be highly adaptable to numerous mission types, all while putting no lives at risk and remaining cost efficient. Many pieces of modern military equipment, especially those with the modern sensor and weapons equipment found in the Predator platform, cost encormous amounts of money. However, as of 2009 a complete Predator drone package costs only $20 million. This includes four MQ-1A Predator drones, a ground control station, and a Predator Primary Satellite Link. The cost of maintaining the Predator fleet is also relatively low, operating and sustaining 195 MQ-1 Predators in 2010 cost the United States $2. 38 billion. In comparison, one F-15 Strike Eagle costs the Air Force approximately $100 million. The ground control station of a Predator unit is highly customizable, but a standard station is designed to fit into the body of a C-130 Hercules aircraft. During operation, one operator controls a Predators flight path and movements, while another monitor’s the drone’s equipment, including sensors and weapons. A commander will always be present in a ground control station to supervise the Predator unit. As the Predator was designed to be adaptable and upgradable, many variations and enhanced version of the Predator exist. In 2001, General Atomics created proof of concept UAV then called the Predator-B. The Predator-B featured a more efficient engine that was also less prone to malfunction, a longer wingspan, and a hardened design. This allowed the Predator-B to fly as high as 52,000 feet, above any potentially dangerous weather. By 2004, the Air Force had need of a UAV with more offensive capabilities, and the Predator-B was selected to take on this role. Renamed the MQ-9B Hunter Killer or MQ-9B Reaper, this drone has become the main UAV of the United States Armed Forces. The MQ-9B Reaper has an improved targeting system for identification and weapons targeting, an increased weight capacity for munitions or fuel, and an endurance time of over 42 hours. [9] The Reaper is not meant to replace the Predator drone however, instead it is used in more offensive mission, as it can be fitted with â€Å"twin 225 kilogram guided bombs, eight Hellfires, and two Sidewinder [missiles]†[10]. The original MQ-1A Predator is used for missions that only require surveillance or light armament. A third major variation of the Predator drone, the Predator-C, is under development as a stealth UAV. With a more streamlined design, the Predator-C is intended to offer offensive and surveillance capabilities, and models have been designed for deployment on aircraft carriers. Though development is ongoing, the United States Navy and Air Force have both ordered Predator-Cs. As the MQ-1A Predator is so adaptable and cost-efficient, it has had a major impact on numerous operations since its introduction. In 2000, the Predators were undergoing a trial run in Afghanistan by search for majoring terrorist leaders, including Osama Bin Laden. On at least two occasions in September of 2000, the Predators identified a tall man wearing white robes in Kandahar, Afghanistan that the 9/11 Commission Report states was â€Å"probably Bin Laden. †[11] However, these events occurred before the Predators were outfitted with offensive capabilities. On March 4, 2002, also in Afghanistan, a Predator drone destroyed a fortified Taliban bunker that had pinned down an Army Ranger team during the Battle of Robert’s Ridge. F-15 and F-16 fighters were previously scrambled to destroy the bunker, but were unsuccessful. Additionally, two of the twenty-two terrorists on the FBI’s most wanted list have been killed by Predator drones, Mohammed Atef and Fahid Mohammed Ally Msalam, both participants in the 1998 US Embassy bombings. The Predator was also been extremely effective in operations in Iraq. Between July 2005 and June 2006, Predator drones â€Å"participated in more than 242 separate raids; engaged 132 troops in contact-force protection actions; fired 59 Hellfire missiles; surveyed 18,490 targets; escorted four convoys; and flew 2,073 sorties for more than 33,833 flying hours. [13] Due to the success and variability of the entire Predator series, the platform is currently under consideration for many non-military roles. The Federal Aviation Administration recently authorized both the Predator and Reaper drones for domestic use in searching for the victims of disasters; the advance imaging equipment in the drones could be used to located survivors that would otherwise remain lost, and the drones are capable of remaining in flight much longer than ordinary rescue teams. 14] The US Border Patrol also utilizes Predator drones to maintain the US-Mexico border, and NASA uses the drones for high altitude scientific study. As the culmination of UAV technology and development, the MQ-1A Predator drone and its variations have had a lasting and revolutionary impact both on and off the battlefield. As the United States moves continues to move into the 21st century, the Predator drone enables long range surveillance and offensive capabilities without endangering the lives of soldiers, all while remaining extremely cost efficient. The applications of the Predator drone are nearly limitless as it has been an overwhelming success in nearly every deployment it has seen. By utilizing the technological advantages that the Predator drone offers, the United States Armed Forces will continue its missions without putting more servicemen or women at risk.

Partisan elections Essays -- essays research papers

Partisan Elections   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  First, let’s talk about the advantages of partisan elections compared to nonpartisan elections. It makes voting a lot faster because the people can just go to either democrat, republican or independent column. They do not have to go through a big list of candidates to figure out who is the best choice, like it would be in nonpartisan elections. Another advantage of having partisan elections would have to be the free press and name recognition. These are really important in an election especially name recognition, because you want the people to notice your name on the ballot when it comes to election time and vote for you. I think that partisan elections help address issues and get the word out to the people, because the candidates have to campaign. This is good because they actually have to go out and talk to the people within the state they are running for. If this was a small town and the people of that town knew who you were and what you have accomplishe d while in politics, than there is a high pro...

Pirates of the Caribbean Critical Essay

A key character that ensures we enjoy the film throughout is captin jack sparrow. The first time we meet jack he is portrayed as a powerful figure standing tall on top of his ship. As the scene progresses we see that he is drunk and unorganised sailing on his own on a sinking boat. The director shows us this by using a wide array of camera shots and other techniques. When we first see jack he is standing on top of his ship. Although he is standing tall and proud his clothes are weather beaten and he has clearly been at sea for a long time.The low angle camera shots that the director uses help the impression that he is powerful and strong. The director also uses an over the shoulder shot to help connect the audience to jack. The director then thatters this illusion by panning down the mast to reveal that he is on a small boat, that is quickly taking on water ,all on his own. The director does this to make jack an instantly likeable character and to make us want to fing out more about him. The change from jack being a drunk to a skilled swordfighter makes the character of jackmore interesting.The second time we meet jack he is in the blacksmiths where William turner is an apprentice. The camera angle that the director uses a wide shot so that you see that the workshop is small and to emphasize that he is agile and quick. The director does this so we find out slightly more about jack and become more interested. Through out the film jack is portrayed as an anti- hero and this is emphisized as jack does not want to shoot will as he says ‘’this bullet is not ment for you ‘’ meaning he went to port royal with a mission. The director does this to reveal a major plot point. he director of â€Å"the pirates of the caribbean† portrays miss elizabeth swann as a naive and dependent girl but this impression is ruined the second time we meet her. in the first encounter we see elizabeth trying on a dress her father has bought her from london. s he seems very feminine, well educated and wealthy but she has something to hide. a medallion she had taken off of will whe she and her majestys navy first found him. this adds to the enjoyment of the film by adding a twist that changes the whole story as this medallion lands elizabeth and the man she loves in alot of trouble. Read Critical Essay about Skurzynski’s NethergraveIn this scene she appears quite rebellious in the way she wants will to speak to her using her first name instead of miss swann but will has to remind her that this cannot happen because there is a difference between their two classes. the director does significant and clever he has elizabeth standing at the top of a stair case and will at the bottom during this conversation subtly  signifying that elizabeth is of a higher class but as the conversation progresses elizabeth walks down the staircase as she thinks that her and will are of the same class. he reason elizabeth treats will like this is because ever since  she laid her eyes on him six years ago on the crossing from england to port royal she hhas loved him madly. howthis makesthe film more enjoyable is by putting in a romantic element to the story meaning the two cant live with out the other so they are both trying to save the other by putting their own lives on the line creating excitement and suspense.

The Operation of, and Justifications for, the Postal Rule - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 11 Words: 3264 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Argumentative essay Level High school Did you like this example? TABLE OF CONTANTS NO. CONTENTS PAGES 1 INTRODUCTION 2 2 DEFINITION 2 3 QUESTION: What reasons have been given by the courts for the postal acceptance rule? and in what circumstances will the postal acceptance rules not operate? 3 4 RELEVENT CASE 6 5 CONCLUSION 7 6 REFERANCES 8 INTRODUCTION An acceptance agreement strengthens a time draft by putting the acceptor under contractual obligation to pay. International trade is facilitated by banks enacting bankers acceptances, thereby guaranteeing the payment for goods. Postal rule is a rule of contrac law which makes an exception to the general rule citing that an acceptance is only created when communicated directly to the offeror. An acceptance is binding and the contract is only said to be perfected when the acceptor places acceptance in the mail box for a return mail, even if it never reaches the offeror. The posting rule is an exception to the general rule of contract law in common law countries that acceptance takes place when communicated. The posting regulation states, by contrast, that acceptance takes effect when a letter is posted. One justification given for the rule is that the offer or nominates the post officeas implied agent and thus receipt of the acceptance by the post office is rega rded as that of the offer0ee. However, if the offeree sends a rejection and then sends an acceptance whichever communication is received by the offeror first controls. DEFINITION OF ACCEPTENCE A contractual agreement on a time draft or sight draft to pay the amount due at a specified date. The party who is expected to pay the draft writes accepted, or similar wording indicating acceptance, next to his or her signature along with the date. This person then becomes the acceptor, and is obligated to make the payment by the maturity date. A bankers acceptance is a time draft honored by a bank, and is typically used in international trade. A trade acceptance is a time draft drawn by the seller of goods on a buyer. In a trade acceptance, the buyer is the acceptor. The postalruleis a concept of contract law that is commonly referred to as the  mailbox rule. It was formed at a time when contracting parties did much of their bargaining from a distance. Bargaining at a distance, t ypically through the mail, created a problem, because the parties could not know at the same time whether they had formed acontract. As a result, a generalruledictating the time of an effective acceptance was necessary. Thus, thepostalrulewas created and stands for the proposition that acceptance is effective on dispatch . Thepostalruleis an exception to the generalrule, which dictates that acceptance is effective on receipt. The rational behind thepostalruleis that it encourages contracting by parties at a distance by making the person in the position of giving an acceptance just as secure as if thecontractwas being made face to face. From a policy standpoint, it also fosters the creation of contracts at the earliest possible moment QUESTION: What reasons have been given by the courts for the postal acceptance rule? and in what circumstances will the postal acceptance rules not operate? Since the inception of the postal acceptance rule in 1818, numerous alternative meth ods of communication have been developed, including the telephone, telex, telegraph, facsimile and e-mail. This article examines whether the postal acceptance rule will be applied to acceptances communicated by e-mail. In resolving this issue the authors consider how an e-mail is transmitted, the ambit of the postal acceptance rule and its underlying policy considerations and how the Courts have resolved this issue in relation to other modern forms of communication. It is well established that the general rule governing the acceptance of an offer is that acceptance is not effective until it is communicated to the offeror.1 However, an equally well established exception to this general proposition is the postal acceptance rule. Although the postal acceptance rule is deeply entrenched within our legal system, the scope of the rule and its applicability to modern forms of communication are issues which have not been conclusively determined by the courts. Since the initial formula tion of the postal acceptance rule, communication technology has dramatically changed. As each new method of communication has emerged, the courts have been compelled to determine the applicability of the postal acceptance rule. The development of e-mail means that this issue has once again arisen for consideration. Due to the increase in the use of e-mail as a tool of commerce, it is essential that this issue be resolved to enable contracting parties to utilize this new technology with a degree of certainty Acceptance is not effective as a general rule unless communicated to the offeror. However the postal acceptance rule is one important exception. The postal rule was first used inAdams v Linsellto mean that acceptance takes place once a letter of acceptance is posted by the offeree. The defendantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s argument was that once they did not hear from the plaintiffs they were not in consensus and therefore proceeded to sellthe wool. A number of cases proceeded along t hese linesDunlop v Higginsas well as HouseholdCarriage vFire Insuranceeven though the offeror sufferedhardshipas a result of the letters of acceptance being delayed orgetting lostin the post. The postal acceptance rule flies against the requirement in the law of contract that acceptance has to be communicated. More importantly it weakens the doctrine of consensus at idem (meeting of minds) for a contract to take place as well as the mirror theory that there must be a definite offer mirrored by a definite acceptance. Hardship is placed on the offeror but not on the offeree. Also various complications can occur because of this exception tothe generalrule that acceptance is not effective as a general rule unless communicated to the offeror. There have been several justifications according to Simon Gardner in his article Trashing with Trollope for this rule none of which have been satisfactory. The first one was that thepost officewas the agent of the offeror and so receipt of the let ter by the agent is equivalent to receipt by the offeror. This is unacceptable as the post office is merely the conduit by which letters pass through. The post office cannot contract on behalf of the offeror. The second justification is that the offeror has chosen to start negotiations through the post and so the risk of delay or loss in the post should be on him. However this precludes situations where negotiations initiated by the offeror did not involve letters. The third justification is that it leads to businessefficiency and and enables the offeree to act on a binding contract the moment the acceptance letter is posted. This justification is advantageous to the offeree but not to the offeror. With such tenuous arguments it is was no wonder that the postal rule was circumscribed.Henthorn v Fraserdecided that the postal rule would only apply if it was within the contemplation of the parties to use the post or in the case ofByrne v Van Tienhovenwhich began to confine the postal rule within narrow limits. This particular case made the law even more confusing as there were now separate rules for the postal rule with regard to offers and revocation of offers. The justification was that making acceptance complete at posting rather than delivery minimizes the window within which such a revocation may take place. Conversely making the offerorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s revocation ineffective until communicated prolongs the window during which an offeree may accept. The cumulative effect made it additionally onerous on the offeror. The development of faster rules of communication at the time could have something to do with these particularly important developments. A situation could arise where the offeree who changes her mind: for example if after posting a letter of acceptance, she informs the offeror by telephone, before the letter arrives, that she rejects the offer. In the absence of English cases the Scottish case ofDunmore v Alexanderis quoted where it was decide d that because of the additional cost of using speedier communication was used, the effect would be that there would be an effective revocation and that the original acceptance will cease to be effective. More confusion would follow with the decision in the case ofEntores v Miles Far East Corpwhere it was held that the postal rule did not apply to telexes and that it was confined to non instantaneous forms of communication. The same approach was taken with regard to faxes inBrinkibon v Stahag Stahl. The widest exception to the postal rule was recognised inHolwell Securities v Hugheswhere it was suggested that the postal rule ought not to apply where it would lead to manifest inconvenience and absurdity. With more instant forms of communication such as e-mail, correspondence by post is becoming an exception rather than the rule. It is important that the postal rule be confined to the museum and that the rules of acceptance be applied regardless of the mode of communication. Differ ences in application of the rule for other more instant means of communication would make it difficult to apply uniformity to the rules of offer and acceptance. It would seem that even with more modern technologies there is still proof of posting does not guarantee that there has been acceptance. Just because the message transmission ok on a fax machine or message sent in an email box does not necessarily mean that the receiver has received it. It would seem that in any form of communication proof of posting is not proof of receipt and that parties must ensure that there acceptance is communicated regardless. Where post is the requested form of communication between parties or where it is an appropriate and accepted means of communication between parties, acceptance is complete as soon as the letter is posted. Even if the letter was mislaid or lost and does not reach the offeror. It is a requirement that the letter of acceptance has been properly posted London andNorthern Bank( 1900). It is found telegrams also fall under the postal rule. An issue that rises from the Postal rule is that there is a period of time, where person(s) are in the dark as to whether a contract is in existence or not. Courts have decided that the offeror assumes all the risk, as the offer is still open during the time the letter of acceptance is in the post Adams v Lindsell(1818). The decision was based on the fact that an acceptance of an offer could go on ad infinitum, back and forth between the parties. If one had to acknowledge the receipt and then the acknowledgment had to be acknowledged so on and so forth. Unless the offeror has clearly stated in the terms of the offer that acceptance must be communicated by other means the offer must be accepted through the terms of the postal rule. Such a situation arose in the case Holwell securities Ltd v Hughes (1974), where the in the terms of the offer it was clearly indicated acceptance had to be by à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“notice in writingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . The letter of acceptance was lost in the post; therefore Hughes did not receive a valid acceptance as he had not received a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“notice in writingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . There are further cases highlighting the method of communication in relation to acceptance. Where a method of communication is stipulated by the offeror. Clear wording is required if the method of communication is to be mandatory. In Yates Building Co v RJ Pulleyn (1975) the acceptance was to be sent by à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“registered or recordeddelivery postà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . The plaintiff sent his acceptance by through the standardpost service. The defendant refused to accept the bid as it was not sent to them by the methods as they had outlined in the offer. The courts found that there was a binding contract in place with the receipt of the acceptance by letter. This ruling was appealed and the court further outlined the findings by stating the offeror did not state that the only metho d of acceptance as outlined would be binding. Another area the postal rule was rigorously tested was where the original offer was withdrawn or revoked. When does the revocation come into effect under the postal rule? Under the postal rule, the letter of acceptance is relevant on posting. Letters communicating revocation come into effect only when the letter revoking the offer is delivered. Key case dealing with revocation under the postal rule is Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880). The judges ruled in this case in favour of the plaintiff. The judges ruled it was proven by the plaintiff they had accepted the original offer by posting a response to the defendant. The letter of revocation was received after their letter of acceptance had been posted by the plaintiff. RELEVENT CASE LAW: ADAM VS LINDSELL: The case ofAdams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B Ald 681is taught to university law students when studying offer and acceptance. It is often thought by students to have set a rather str ange precedent. However, this is because modern students are viewing Adams v Lindsell in a modern context, rather than the somewhat different context of previous times. This piece will explain the facts which occurred in Adams v Lindsell and what the court decided. It will then go on to describe when the rule in Adams v Lindsell will be applicable. The facts of Adams v Lindsell are that: the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs on 2 September, offering to sell them some wool and requested that the plaintiffs reply à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"in course of post. The letter which contained the offer was wrongly addressed and therefore the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. As a result of this delay, the letter of acceptance was not received until 9 September by the defendants, and this was two days later than the defendants would have expected to receive it. Because of this, on 8 September the defendants had sold the wool to a third person. The question for the court in Adams v Linds ell was therefore whether a contract of sale had been entered into before 8 September when the wool was sold to the third party. If the acceptance was effective when it arrived at the address or when the defendant saw it, then no contract would have been made and the sale to the third party would amount to revocation of the offer. However, the court held that the offer had been accepted as soon as the letter had been posted. Thus, in Adams v Lindsell there was indeed a contract in existence before the sale of the wool to the third party, even though the letter had not actually been received by the defendant. The defendant was therefore liable in breach of contrack The à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"postal rule inAdams v Lindsellhas since been confirmed in Household Fire and CarriageAccident InsuranceCo v Grant (1879) 4 EX D 216 where the defendant applied for some shares in a company. These were then allotted to him but he never received the letter of allotment. It was held that a contract exist ed. More recently, Adams v Lindsell has been reinforced by Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl and Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft GmbH [1983] 2 AC 34 where it was held that acceptance is effective when it is placed in the control of the Post Office, ie. placed in a post box or handed to an officer of the post. There are several theories about the rule in Adams v Lindsell. One such theory is that the rule prevents an offeree from accepting by post but then nullifying this acceptance by rejecting the offer by a quicker means of communication. Another theory is that without the rule an offeree would not be able to know for certain whether they had actually entered into a contract or not. It can be seen that in all cases one of the parties is going to suffer hardship, and the rule in Adams v Lindsell results in this party being the offeror rather than the offeree. This can perhaps be justified because when an offeror chooses to start negotiations by post he takes the risk of delay and accide nts in the post. Furthermore, the offeror can avoid the rule in Adams v Lindsell by expressly stipulating that he is not to be bound until actual receipt of the acceptance. A further theory for the existence of the postal rule as adopted in Adams v Lindsell is that if the offeror, either expressly or impliedly, indicates that postal acceptance is sufficient then they should bear the consequences of the postal rule, as the defendant did in Adams v Lindsell. Moreover, Adams v Lindsell could be considered support for the idea that the offeror should be considered as making the offer all the time that the offer is in the post, and that therefore the agreement between the two parties is complete at the moment that acceptance is posted. In Adams v Lindsell itself it was suggested (at 683) that if the rule did not exist à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“no contract could ever be completed by the post. For if the [offerors] were not bound by their offer when accepted by the [offerees] till the answer w as received, then the [offerees] ought not to be bound till after they had received the notification that the [offerors] had received their answer and assented to it. And so it might go on ad infinitumà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ . One further reason for the existence of the rule in Adams v Lindsell is that the post office can be considered to be the common agent of both parties, and therefore communication to this agent immediately completes the contract. However, where the letter is not addressed then this will not be enough. Therefore, mere delivery of the acceptance to the agent does not of itself complete a contract for the purpose of the rule in Adams v Lindsell. The Adams v Lindsell postal rule only applies when it is reasonable to use the post as a means of communicating acceptance. So, an offer made in a letter sent by post could be accepted by post. Yet at other times postal acceptance may be reasonable. For example in Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 it was held to be reasonable to post acceptance in response to an oral offer because the parties lived some distance away from each other. However, Adams v Lindsell will not normally apply where acceptance is made by post in response to an offer made by telex, email or telephone. Furthermore, Adams v Lindsell will not apply if the acceptor knew that the postal service was at that time disrupted. Adams v Lindselltherefore has three consequences in English law. Firstly, a posted acceptance prevails over a previously posted withdrawal of the offer which had not yet reached the offeree when the acceptance was posted. Secondly, acceptance takes effect on posting even where it never reaches the offeror or only does so after delay. Finally, the contract is taken to have been made at the time of posting so as to take priority over another contract made after the original acceptance was posted CONCLUSION It is evident that the arguments relating to retention or desertion of the general rule are advanced; it is also clear from the aforementioned that in order to provide the valid conclusion the legislators have to consider many aspects of communication that is conducted by electronic means. In writerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s view it is essential to also asses the rule applicable to revocation of contract as the technology development has changed the way how and when the acceptance takes place and therefore it can be often discriminatory to bind offeror and leave alternatives largely open for the offeree. REFERENCE Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Operation of, and Justifications for, the Postal Rule" essay for you Create order https://libromeo.blogspot.com/2012/02/postal-rule.html https://www.bitsoflaw.org/contract/formation/study-note/degree/acceptance-postal-rule