American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

writing was “sent,” which was a permissible mode of acceptance, and subsequently
was delivered to AMAIA, the proper recipient.
Application of the mailbox rule to the undisputed material facts in this case
produces the legal conclusion that the date of payment of the overdue premium was
July 25, 2007. On July 23, 2007, Dr. Griffith electronically instructed Bank of
America, as his agent, to make payment to AMAIA. The evidence viewed most
favorably to the appellants supports a reasonable inference that Dr. Griffith could
have reinstructed Bank of America not to make the payment; therefore, as of July 23,
2007, he had set in motion the means to accept the offer of reinstatement but still had
the power to reverse course. On July 25, 2007, however, Bank of America remitted
payment to AMAIA by sending it a check, drawn on the J. P. Morgan Chase Bank,
N.A. account, for $369.46. At that point, the permissible means for acceptance was in
motion and, so far as is established by the common law mailbox rule, was beyond Dr.
Griffith’s power to stop. This would be true whether Bank of America sent the check
through the United States Postal Service, a courier service, or otherwise.
For all these reasons, we hold that the Policy was reinstated effective July 25,
2007, three days before Dr. Griffith died, and therefore was in force when he died. It
was undisputed that Dr. Griffith’s death was an accident under the terms of the
Policy. The circuit court therefore properly entered judgment in favor of Ms. Wilson
against US Life for $650,000, plus pre-judgment interest.
______________________
Review Question 5. The U.S. Life Insurance court says that, by the time of the
dispute in this case, the insurance contract was a “unilateral contract.” What are the
implications for formation (or re-formation) of the contract in this case of it being
unilateral? Was Dr. Griffith’s insurance policy originally a unilateral contract? Why
or why not?
Review Question 6. In Hendricks v. Behee, which you read earlier in this unit,
the court held that acceptance had to be communicated to the offeror. Can you
reconcile that with the “mailbox rule” in this case?
Review Question 7. In the modern world, the post office is used less and less
as a medium of communication in making contracts. Would the rationale of the
mailbox rule apply to an email, voicemail, or text response? Is it effective when it is
sent or when it is received? As you answer this question, consider section 15 of the
Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which is entitled “Time and Place of Sending
and Receipt.” How—if at all—do the mailbox rule and UETA section 15 work
together?
______________________
______________________________________________________________________________
UNIT 6: ACCEPTANCE 107