Postal rule technicality?

where does uk case law stand on the postal rule when an offer stipulates that acceptance must be recieved through post by the sales director, and the acceptance is recieved by the company, but not forwarded to director? i seem to recall hearing that it is binding (even when you apply Howell Securities v Hughes) because the court wont penalise someone for the internal mismanagement of another company, but i cant find ths point anywhere, nor a relevant case. hlep much appreciated

also a similar problem with finding a case on how acceptance via telephone is binding although it is not forwarded internally

Just a few thoughts, if the offerer stipulates that acceptance is to be by post ( on the basis they were in the driving seat and set out the rules ) they must stand the consequences of those postal rules of acceptance. ie. the fact that post is sometimes delayed or even misdirected - see Adams v Lindsell (1818). If the reality is that post for specific individuals in an organisation is channelled though eg. its post room I would argue as you suggest, company inefficiences can not be used to avoid the acceptance being received. As for telex see Entores v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327 and obiter by Lord Denning about telephone acceptances. Perhaps also Lord Wilberforce in Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl & Stahlwaren-handelsgesellscvhaft mbH [1983] 2 AC with the observatrions on modern means of communication, agents and servants of a company, office hours, answerphone messages and out of hours communications. If your research is still inconclusive you could alwys try ending your essay with the old standby .. ' therefore it would seem the law in this area is unclear and will be decided on a case by case basis.'

I don't know of a case where it was specifically decided. However the cases I saw usually used the discussion at the end of the judgement in he Brimnes: Tenax Steamship Co Ltd v The Brimnes (Owners) [1975] QB 929 as justification for believing that sloppy practice within a company was not any sort of justification for claiming that an offer had not been accepted.