4/14/2019 The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

HOME 

The Battle of Forms

By Guest / January 29, 2018 / 10 Min read / Add comment

[Narayan Gupta is a final year law student at Jindal Global Law School,
Sonepat]

Introduction

This post seeks to envisage the problems that arise in the Battle of Forms and the
solutions to tackle them. Before we get into the problems encapsulated in the Battle
of Forms, it is necessary to understand what leads us to that concept.

As the name suggests, it is a battle between ‘forms’, which refers to the document
that enlists the terms of a contract. Basically, it is a tussle between the parties as to
which form or whose terms should govern their contract. These terms are generally
the standard terms of the contract, also known as the boilerplate provisions of the
contract.

In order to understand this battle of forms, I would like to draw the attention of the
readers towards a landmark case, Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd. v. Ex-Cell-O
Corporation (England) Ltd.[1] In this case, Butler Machine Tool Co. Ltd contracted
with Ex-Cell-O Corporation (hereinafter “Cell”) for sale of a machine tool worth £
75,535. Butler had sent a quotation with certain terms and conditions which included
a price variation clause and delivery date (10 months) (hereinafter “First Form”).
Cell replied by filling an order form which had certain terms and conditions written
on its back which included an additional installation cost and delivery date (10-11
months) (hereinafter the “Second Form”). It did not have a price variation clause.
Then, Butler replied acknowledging the order form with a revised quotation which

https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 1/9
4/14/2019 The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

had a revised date of delivery (10-11 months) (hereinafter the “Last Form”). This
HOME 
exchange of documents/ forms leads to the “Battle of Forms”.

Now, the problem that arises is when is this contract said to be concluded: what are
the final terms that govern this contract? These questions constitute the Battle of
Forms. Often, this leads to prolonged litigation resulting in excessive delays and
costs incurred by both the parties. Matters may worsen when the contracting parties
are from different nations because then the question arises as to which law governs
the contract, thereby leading us back to the terms of the contract. We will now look
at few solutions to this problem that have been devised over a period of time under
various legal systems. For the purpose of clarity, we will continue using the facts of
the Butler case as an illustration in these solutions.

Solutions to Battle of Forms

The first solution is known as the “Mirror Image Rule[2]” of contract formation.
According to this rule, a contract is not formed until the terms and conditions of both
the parties are exact mirror image of each other, i.e. are the same. This solution
solves this problem at the first stage itself, i.e. when is the contract concluded. Since
there is no dispute regarding the terms and conditions of the contract, the question as
to whose terms prevail never arises. Applying this Mirror Image Rule to the facts of
the Butler case, it would have been held that the contract between Butler and Cell
was not concluded on the Second Form because the terms and conditions of both the
sides were different. Now the question arises whether it was concluded on Third
Form. Not really, because there existed a difference between terms and conditions
between the Second Form and Third Form. The Third Form referred to the First
Form by using the term “revised quotation”. Therefore, there contract between Butler
and Cell cannot be said to be concluded until both the parties explicitly agree on the
same terms of the contract. This rule is also enshrined in section 59 of Restatement
(Second) of Contracts.[3] In Tinn v. Hoffmann,[4] the Court held that in cases where
the terms of a contract are not consistent, then there is no binding contract between
the parties. Though this is the most easy and straight-forward solution to the Battle of
Forms, it does not help much. If we use this principle as a solution to Battle of

https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 2/9
4/14/2019 The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

Forms, it would make the commercial transactions not only difficult but also time-
HOME 
consuming.

The second solution is known as “Last Shot Rule”[5]. This is an addition to the
previous solution. In Butler case, Lord Denning came up with the “Last Shot Rule”
to solve the Battle of Forms. According to this rule, terms and conditions mentioned
in the Last Form will govern the contract between the parties, if the other party never
objected to the Last Form and has acted in furtherance of the contract. Therefore, the
conduct of the party depicts the consent to the terms and conditions set out in the
Last Form. We will now apply this rule to the facts of the Butler case. The contract
between Butler and Cell would be said to have been concluded when Cell, through
its conduct, accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the Last Form. Since, it
never objected to the Last Form before fulfilling its obligations under the contract, it
would be concluded that the terms and conditions set by Butler in its revised
quotation would prevail over the Cell’s terms of the contract. Even though this
solution is better than the previous solution, one of its drawbacks is the duration for
revocation of the offer. Since, in accordance with this rule, the contract will be
concluded only upon performance by the other party, it gives too much discretion to
the party who gave the Last Form to revoke the offer. Going back to facts of the
Butler case, assume that the Last Form had a condition that Cell needs to pay half of
the amount for the machine tool within 10 months of execution of the contract. Now,
until Cell has actually paid Butler, the terms and conditions offered in the Last Form
can be revoked by Butler.

The third solution is covered under section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code.
This code applies to transactions in United States. It proposes a solution to the
drawback of Last Shot Rule by stating that in case of Battle of Forms, “any definite
and reasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent
within a reasonable time” would be construed as an acceptance even if there exists
some additional or different terms in the acceptance. This principle would not apply
to cases where the acceptance explicitly states that assent to additional or different
terms of the acceptance is a condition for the acceptance. Section 2-207(2) creates a
difference between contracts entered into between merchants and non-merchants. In

https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 3/9
4/14/2019 The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

case of non-merchants, additional terms stated in the acceptance would be seen as a

HOME 
proposal for addition to the contract whereas, in case of merchants, additional terms
would automatically “become a part of the contract unless the offer expressly limits
acceptance to the terms of the offer” or there is any material alteration or objection to
the additional terms have been notified. Section 2-207(3) includes the principle of
acceptance by conduct of the parties. It also states the terms of the contract would
not only include the terms that both the parties have agreed in writing but also any
supplementary terms present in Uniform Commercial Code. If we read Uniform
Commercial Code in its entirety, it supports the party who has sent the First Form. In
Daitom v. Pennwalt Corp,[6] it was held that when there are inconsistent terms in the
contract, those terms should be removed and filled by default rules, also known as
gap fillers of Uniform Commercial Code.

The fourth solution is covered under United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods (also known as “CISG”). It applies to international
business transactions and can be opted out by the parties. Article 19 of CISG states
that any reply made to an offer would amount to an acceptance if the additional or
different terms (if any) stated in the acceptance do not materially alter the contract
unless any objection is raised by the offeror without undue delay. The next question
that arises is what constitutes material alteration of a contract. Article 19(3) state that
a material alteration includes price, payment, quality and quantity of goods, place
and time of delivery, liability of the parties or settlement of the disputes. This
provision makes article 19 redundant because it almost covers all the substantive
provisions of the contract. In effect, the difference between Mirror Image Rule and
CISG is just that CISG takes into account any immaterial alteration of contract.
Therefore, if the forms exchanged between the parties have material alterations, the
Last Form would prevail. If we would apply this principle to facts of Butler case,
then only those terms would be binding that are agreed by Cell and Butler mutually,
for instance, 10-11 months.

The fifth solution is known as “Knock-out Rule”. This principle is enshrined in

article 2.1.2 of UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (also
known as “PICC”). The PICC rules apply only if both the parties agree to be bound

https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 4/9
4/14/2019 The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

by it. Article 2.1.2 provides that in case of battle of forms, a contract is said to be
HOME 
concluded but only on the terms which parties have mutually agreed to or are
common in substance unless either of the parties explicitly indicate, without undue
delay, that they do not want to be bound by the said term. Therefore, all the
additional or different terms of the contract get knocked out or become inapplicable.
Applying this principle to facts of Butler case, assuming Butler and Cell have agreed
to bind themselves by PICC, Butler and Cell would be bound to fulfill the mutually
agreed obligations.

Under Indian law, a mixture of the Mirror Image Rule and the Last Shot Rule is used
to tackle the Battle of Forms. Under section 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read
with section 4 of the same, it is stated that a proposal is said to be accepted when the
other party communicates or has the effect of communicating the acceptance by the
other party. This depicts that terms of both the parties should be identically same.
Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that acceptance can also be made
by conduct, specifically by performing the conditions of the proposal. This section
intends to move towards the Last Shot Rule from the Mirror Image Rule.

Conclusion

As will be evident by now from the above solutions, not every proposed solution
applies to every contract and each solution has some drawback or the other.
Therefore, none of the abovementioned solutions is a perfect one to tackle the Battle
of Forms. It is advisable for contracting parties to ensure that their contract is
governed by whichever rule they choose to apply to their contract. The parties to the
contract should start with writing down their mutual understanding in form of a
memorandum. In an ideal scenario, the party to a contract should try to ensure that it
is the last one to send the Form and get that accepted by the other party. This will
help in avoiding the situation of Battle of Forms.

– Narayan Gupta

[1] [1979] 1 All ER 965.

https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 5/9
4/14/2019 The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

[2] Concord Blog, The Mirror Image Rule: How understanding common law
HOME 
doctrines will help you better manage your contracts.

[3] Restatement (Second) of Contracts.

[4] 29 L.T.R. 271 (1873).

[5] Marell Law Firm, Mirror Image Rule vs. Last Shot Rule.

[6] 741 F.2d 1569 (10 Cir. 1984).

Contract Law

    

About the author

Guest

VIEW ALL POSTS

Add comment

https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 6/9
4/14/2019 The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

Comment
HOME 

Name *

Email *

Website

SUBMIT COMMENT

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Read more

Supreme Court on the

Applicability of the Limitation Act
to Insolvency Proceedings
https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 7/9
4/14/2019

S The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

November 18, 2018

HOME 

P
Prompt Corrective Action
November 18, 2018

P
Perceiving Data Protection within
the Umbrella of Competition Law
November 18, 2018

S
Supreme Court on Insolvency
Resolution by Operational
Creditors
November 13, 2018

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors

(which shall, for these purposes, include guests) in their
personal capacity and do not, in any way or manner, reflect
the views of the organizations that the contributors are

https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 8/9
4/14/2019 The Battle of Forms - IndiaCorpLaw

presently associated with, or that have previously employed

or retained the contributors. Postings on this blog are for HOME 
informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be
deemed or construed to constitute legal or investment
advice. Discussions on, or arising out of this, blog between
contributors and other persons shall not create any attorney-
client relationship.

Many of the links on this blog will take you to sites operated
by third parties. The contributors of this blog have not
reviewed all of the information on these sites or the
accuracy or reliability of any information, data, opinions,
advice, or statements on these sites. The contributors do not
endorse these sites, or opinions they may offer. These third-
party links are offered solely for the purpose of discussion
and thinking on Indian corporate law and other related
topics. It is also possible that some of the pages linked may
become inactive after the lapse of a period of time.

Developed and Maintained by Legalify

https://indiacorplaw.in/2018/01/the-battle-of-forms.html 9/9