## Facts

- Maria Diosel Cantu was employed as a special-education teacher by the San Benito Consolidated Independent School District under a one-year contract for the 1990–91 school year.
- On August 18, 1990, shortly before the school year began, Cantu hand-delivered a resignation letter to her supervisor, stating it was effective August 17, 1990.
- The resignation letter requested that her final paycheck be mailed to an address in McAllen, Texas, about fifty miles from the district office.
- The superintendent, the only official authorized to accept resignations, received the resignation on August 20, 1990.
- On August 20, the superintendent wrote an acceptance letter and mailed it at approximately 5:15 p.m.
- On August 21, at about 8:00 a.m., Cantu hand-delivered a letter to the superintendent’s office attempting to withdraw her resignation.
- That same day, the superintendent hand-delivered a copy of the previously mailed acceptance letter, stating the resignation had been accepted and could not be withdrawn.
- Cantu sought administrative relief; the Commissioner of Education concluded the acceptance was effective when mailed and that a rescission agreement existed before Cantu’s attempted withdrawal.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Texas contract law, a mailed acceptance is effective on dispatch only when the offer was made by mail or expressly authorizes mail acceptance.
2. Whether mail acceptance may be impliedly authorized by circumstances making that mode of acceptance reasonable, rendering acceptance effective upon mailing.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, which had affirmed the Commissioner of Education’s final order.
- The court held that Texas law permits implied authorization of acceptance by mail when mailing is reasonable under the circumstances, even if the offer was not delivered by mail and did not expressly authorize mail acceptance.
- The superintendent’s acceptance became effective when mailed on August 20, 1990.
- Because the resignation offer was accepted on August 20, Cantu’s attempted withdrawal on August 21 was ineffective, and the district’s refusal to continue honoring the original employment contract was not unlawful.

## Legal Principles

- Under the mailbox rule, when acceptance by mail is authorized (expressly or impliedly), acceptance is effective on dispatch, shifting the risk of delay or nonreceipt to the offeror.
- Authorization to accept by mail may be implied from the circumstances, including whether mailing is a reasonable method of acceptance for the transaction.
- Reasonableness of the medium of acceptance is assessed in context, including timing pressures and the parties’ anticipated means of communication.
- An offer to rescind a contract becomes a binding rescission agreement upon effective acceptance; a subsequent attempted withdrawal of the offer is ineffective once acceptance has occurred.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the administrative determination that the school district’s mailed acceptance of a teacher’s resignation was effective upon mailing because acceptance by mail was reasonably implied, so the teacher could not withdraw the resignation after the acceptance was dispatched.


Cantu v. Cent. Educ. Agency, 884 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994)