If the offeror is reluctant to accept this risk, he can always expressly require actual receipt as a condition before being legally bound by his offer.
The rule was established by a series of 19th century cases, starting with Adams v Lindsell (1818) B & Ald 681, which was later confirmed and expanded in Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HL Cas 381, Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216 and Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27.
Courts have similarly held that the posting rule does apply to acceptances by telephone or fax.
The posting rule does not apply to option contracts or irrevocable offers where acceptance is still effective only upon receipt.
The Texas Business and Commercial Code, following the Uniform Commercial Code, states that "unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language or circumstances, ... (1) an offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances".
[1] Cantu had hand-delivered a letter resigning from an offered contract of employment to the Central Education Agency's office in San Benito on a Saturday, and it was therefore read by its recipient on the Monday morning.
The letter stated that outstanding pay should be forwarded to an address in McAllen, around 50 miles (80 km) from San Benito.
[3] In Tallerman & Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (1957) 98 CLR 93, 111-112[4] Dixon CJ and Fullagar J took a more restrictive view.
However, article 16(1) of the Convention provides for the most important consequence of the common law "posting rule", that is, an offer may not be revoked if the revocation reaches the offeree after it has dispatched an acceptance.
Among other issues, this legislation deals a default rule for the time that email (electronic communications) is sent and when it is received.