The following are issues that need to be addressed when advising Amy about the rights and responsibilities of Sleepy Hollow Nursing Home. The first issue is whether or not Ben's letter is an offer. “An offer is a statement of the terms by which the offeror is willing to be bound if acceptance is communicated while the offer remains alive.” If the offeree understands that the offeror intends to be bound by his proposal, if accepted unequivocally by that offeree, an offer is made. Ben's letter contained a quote of $50,000 to carry out the work with all materials and paints included and he had previously visited the care home to give Amy advice on the work. These facts suggest that Ben actually communicated to the offended party that he had the necessary intent to be bound by these terms if Amy agreed. Therefore, Ben's letter is an offering. The second issue is whether Amy's withdrawal of acceptance in relation to Ben's offer was valid or not. If an offeree accepts an offer by letter, he or she may withdraw that acceptance through a quicker method of communication before the letter is received by the offeror. Amy withdrew her acceptance by calling Ben the day before he received the letter. This was a faster method of communication. In Dunmore v Alexander a letter of acceptance was sent. A letter was subsequently sent withdrawing acceptance. Both letters reached their destination at the same time. It was found that no contract existed because the retraction letter was quicker. Although this is the case, the rule of postal acceptance is that the recipient has made a full acceptance as soon as he mails the letter. For this reason, some argue that a subsequent rejection of this offer is ineffective regardless of whether or not the offeror receives...... half of the document ......uarie University, above n 3.Patterson v Dolman (1908 ) 14 ALR 240.Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, 360. (First category). John Gooley, Peter Radan and Ilija Vickovich, Principles of Australian Contract Law (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 3rd edition, 2014) 89 [5.29].(2011) 275 LSJS 635.Ibid.Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, 360. (Third Category).Gooley, Radan and Vickovich, above n 25 [5.32].Macquarie University, above n 1, [5].Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353, 360. (First Category).Wigan v Edwards ( 1973) 1 ALR 497, 512.Macquarie University, above n 3, [6].(1809) 170 ER 1168.Ibid. Ibid.Ibid.Ibid.Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1991] 1 QB (23 November 1989) 1.Ibid.Ibid 15-6.Ibid.(1994) 34 NSWLR 723, 741-7.Ibid. Ibid.Ibid.(1994) 34 NSWLR 723.(2007) 232 CLR 562.Ibid 576-7.