A project manager at Engineering Corp. sees an advert for a new, innovative computer aided design software in a trade magazine with a retail price of 5000. After receiving approval and in accordance with their policy, the manager posts a letter to the software company using the address in the advert. This says: We agree to buy your software advertised at 5000 in the magazine. Please send instructions for receipt by return mail and include a paper invoice for our records. The software company never received the letter. In the next issue of the magazine, the same software is advertised at 8000.

Advise Engineering Corp.

A. They do not have an enforceable contract with the software company because their acceptance never arrived. If they want to purchase the software, they will likely have to pay the new price of 8000.

B. They do not have an enforceable contract with the software company because the company never accepted their offer of 5000. If they want to purchase the software, they will likely have to pay the new price of 8000.

C. They do not have an enforceable contract with the software company because their acceptance did not match the mirror image rule. If they want to purchase the software, they will likely have to pay the new price of 8000.

D. They have an enforceable contract with the software company for 5000. It does not matter that their acceptance never arrived because the postal rule in Adams v Lindsell [1818] EWHC KB J59 protects this.

E. They do not have an enforceable contract with the software company. Their lost acceptance is not protected by the postal rule in Adams v Lindsell [1818] EWHC KB J59 because post was not an appropriate means of communicating their acceptance.