## Facts

- The Manchester Diocesan Council for Education sought to sell property and invited bids, specifying that acceptance would be sent to the address provided in the bid.
- Commercial and General Investments Ltd submitted the highest bid.
- The Council’s surveyor sent an acceptance letter to the defendant’s solicitor’s address, not the address listed in the bid.
- The defendant argued that this misdirection rendered the acceptance invalid.

## Issues

1. Whether acceptance of an offer is effective if communicated by a method other than that specified by the offeror.
2. Whether acceptance sent to an address not expressly listed in the bid, but still reaching the bidder, constitutes valid acceptance.
3. Whether the offeror must use clear, mandatory language to make a method of acceptance exclusive.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the acceptance was valid, as it was clearly communicated to the defendant.
- Lord Justice Buckley stated that any method of acceptance that is equally effective as the named method is sufficient, unless the offer explicitly requires strict compliance.
- The Council did not stipulate that acceptance must only be sent to the bidder’s address.
- Sending acceptance to the solicitor's address provided effective notice to the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- Where an offeror prescribes a method of acceptance without explicitly stating it must be the only method, any equally effective form of communication will make acceptance valid.
- Mandatory acceptance methods require express terms such as “only by” or “must be.”
- The effectiveness of acceptance depends on clear and timely communication, not strict adherence to procedural preference.
- The "equally effective" test examines whether alternate methods achieve the original communication purpose.
- Later cases demonstrate that courts assess if another method actually fulfills the offeror's intended aim.

## Conclusion

The case confirms that, unless the offer strictly requires a particular form of acceptance, any method that communicates acceptance effectively and promptly will bind the parties. Explicit drafting is necessary to mandate specific methods and avoid disputes over form.


Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1593