Question

请英语大神们帮我翻译一下这两段英文，感激不尽啊~~~

The relevant language here is, "The said
option shall be exercised by notice in writing to the intending vendor
...," a very common phrase in an option agreement. There is, of course,
nothing in that phrase to suggest that the notification to the defendant could
not be made by post. But the requirement of
"notice ... to," in my judgment, is language which should be taken
expressly to assert the ordinary situation in law that acceptance requires to
be communicated or notified to the offeror, and is inconsistent with the theory
that acceptance can be constituted by the act of posting, referred to by Anson's
Law of Contract, 23rd ed. (1969), p. 47. as "acceptance without
notification."

It
is of course true that the instrument could have been differently worded. An
option to purchase within a period given for value has the characteristic of an
offer that cannot be withdrawn. The instrument might have said "The offer
constituted by this option may be accepted in writing within six months:
"in which case no doubt the posting would have sufficed to form the
contract. But that language was not used, and, as indicated, in my judgment,
the language used prevents that legal outcome. Under this head of the case
hypothetical problems were canvassed to suggest difficulties in the way of that
conclusion. What if the letter had been delivered through the letter-box of the
house in due time, but the defendant had either deliberately or fortuitously
not been there to receive it before the option period expired? This does not
persuade me that the artificial posting rule is here applicable. The answer
might well be that in the circumstances the defendant had impliedly invited
communication by use of an orifice in his front door designed to receive
communications.

Answer 1

不知道是哪个案例里出来的，没有完整读完整篇案例很难很好的翻译这段judgment.
这里相关的问题有Postal Acceptance Rule 和 Option. 大意如下

第一段写的是合同里相关的条款是　“The said option shall be exercised by notice in writing to the intending vendor...,”没有说不可以用　postal acceptance rule. 但是'notice to' 的要求需要这个offer 传达到offeror 那里，所以法院认为与　postal acceptance rule 不符。

注1 postal acceptance rule 说的是一旦acceptance 被寄出，就算是accept了。
注2 option 其实就是一个迷你合同，我给你钱，你 keep offer open, 这里说到的合同就是指这个option 的合同]

第二段写的是　Option 是一个不可收回的Offer. 法官说如果合同是如他写的那样，'the Offer constituted...' 那就很清楚寄信这个动作就形成了合同 [是不是 acceptance under postal acceptance rule (?)] 但是这个合同没有这么写，所以就无法达到 'that legal outcome'. 法庭认为这类案子不适用　postal acceptance rule 因为门上的信箱就是acceptance 的方法。

[注 defendant must maintain efficient work practises to ensure acceptances are received, 见
Brinkibon Ltd. v. Stahag Stahl und　Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft m.b.H. [1983] 2 AC 34, 41]

Answer 2

相关的语言在这里,”说
选择由书面通知执行意愿的供应商
…”,一个很常见的词在一个选择协议。当然,有
这句话中没有显示通知被告
不是由职位。但的要求
“通知…,“在我看来,应该采取的语言
为了维护法律,接受需要普通的状况
是沟通或通知要约人,并与理论不一致
可以由接受发帖的行为,被安森的
合同法,23日。(1969),页47岁。为“验收不
通知。”

它
当然是真的,仪器可能是不同的措辞。一个
选择购买在一段给定值的特点
提供不能撤回。仪器可能会说”提供
由这个选项可能会在6个月内以书面形式被接受:
“毫无疑问,在这种情况下形成的帖子就能搞定
合同。但是,语言是不习惯,表示,根据我的判断,
使用的语言阻碍法律的结果。在这种的情况下
假设的问题征询建议道路上的困难
结论。如果这封信已经通过的信箱
房子在适当的时候,但被告故意或偶然地
没有期权有效期过期前收到它吗?这并不
说服我,这里的人工发布规则是适用的。这个问题的答案
很可能,在这种情况下被告已经隐含地邀请
通信利用他的前门设计得到的孔
通信。

Answer 3

好长~~