In some cases, the person whose proposal or offer has not been accepted absolutely or unreservedly by the target recipient where the target recipient attaches a counter-proposal to the original proposal is bound by the counter-proposal. If, by the conduct of the tenderer, it indicates that it has accepted the conditions of the counter-proposal set by the target recipient. It is also important that the acceptance by the target recipient is made in toto, that is, the acceptance of all the conditions of the offer is made, since the acceptance of only part of the offer does not constitute a good acceptance according to the law. For example, A B makes an offer to sell 30 kg of wheat at 700 rupees, but B agrees to buy only 10 kg of wheat. Here, the acceptance made by B is not related to the terms of the contract and therefore the acceptance made by B is not an acceptance in the eyes of the law and therefore A is not obliged to sell him wheat, since there is no contract between them. The ”mirror image” rule is the traditional rule of common law contract law. According to the rule, acceptance must be a reflection of the offer. Attempts by the target recipient to change or modify the original terms of the offer will be treated as counter-offers because they implicitly indicate that the target recipient is not bound by the contract submitted to it. More recently, however, the attitude of the judiciary towards the application of the rule has proved more liberal, noting that only derogations that directly affect the essential clauses of the contract should be regarded as a counter-offer resulting from the alleged acceptance.
In the case of Ramanbhai M. Nilkanth v. Ghashiram Ladliprasad, an application for certain shares was brought in a company on condition that the applicant be appointed cashier in the new branch of the company. The Company proceeded to allocate the shares to the plaintiff without fulfilling the condition and asked him for the money from the share. In the present case, the court concluded that the applicant`s claim for 100 shares was subject to conditions and that the company did not intend to fully accept the terms of the contract if he applied for shares until he was appointed cashier by the company and that there was therefore only partial acceptance of the offer. In contract law, the term ”condition” is used in a vague sense and used as a synonym for ”terms”, ”condition” or ”clause”. In the strict sense, the term condition refers to an effective period after acceptance and before acceptance, a fact on which the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties depend. It may be any act or omission of one of the Contracting Parties, an act of the third party or the occurrence or non-occurrence of a natural event. The conditions are of three types, which are as follows: In Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal v Union Of India & Ors, in this case, the offer offered fixed prices as well as a preferential price, provided that the offer was completed within a shorter period of time than in general.
The court ruled that this did not lead to the formation of a conditional offer, which depends on the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event, and that the condition imposed only served to obtain a faster acceptance. It is a common principle of contract law that the offer submitted to the target addressee is accepted in full by him and that he cannot accept the offer in part by accepting only the contractual conditions that are favourable to him, while rejecting the other conditions of the offer, since an incomplete acceptance of the offer would lead to a counter-proposal and therefore does not bind the supplier, since there is no binding contract between him and the beneficiary. An offer is a legal offer or a proposal to take or refrain from taking any action, and it binds the party to the service, the party to whom the offer is made. A tender can be made in relation to money or certain items. If the offer is not an offer, it falls into the same category as a price offer. If the offer is accepted, it becomes a standing offer. A contract can only be born if an offer is made on the basis of the offer. If a person decides to counter an offer, the opposite person or group must choose to accept it or develop an additional counter-proposal. A letter of intent to accept an offer is sometimes issued before the final acceptance of the offer. The letter of intent shall have no binding effect on any of the Contracting Parties. In Dibakar Swain v. Cashew Development Corp.
The letter of acceptance issued by the Corporation only indicated its intention to participate in the call for tenders. The acceptance was not clearly reduced in writing. The court held that no binding contract had been concluded by the parties and that no work order could be issued and that, therefore, the amount deposited by the tenderer could not be confiscated. In addition, individuals or groups may not know the exact time at which acceptance was established. However, this does not guarantee the contestation of the contractual conditions as long as the acceptance has been established or implied. The assumption of being legally enforceable must be absolute and unrestricted. Section 7(1) of the Indian Contracts Act states that acceptance of the offer must be absolute and unrestricted in order to convert an offer into an agreement. The logic behind the principle that acceptance of the offer must be absolute and unqualified is that if acceptance is not absolute and qualified, it will result in a counter-offer that will result in the rejection of the initial offer that the supplier has made to the target recipient. If the target consignee makes changes to the original terms of the proposed contract and subsequently accepts the contract, such acceptance would result in the nullity of the contract […].