究竟有冇acceptance？

On January 9, Ben called Sheila and said he would like to buy 800 yards of Egyptian silk at the price of $80 per yard. Ben said he will send an order form to Sheila the next day. The next morning, Ben sent a signed order form to Sheila by post. The order form stated, "I would like to buy 800 yards of Egyptian silk at the price of $80 per yard to be delivered to my warehouse on 1 February”. Sheila received the letter two days later. She sent a separate agreement to the Ben (by post). The agreement stated the contract was made on the terms set by Sheila for the sale of 800 yards of Egyptian silk at the price of $90 per yard to be collected at Sheila’s warehouse on 1 February. The terms included a price variation clause. There was a detachable slip at the end of the document that required Ben’s signature. Ben received the letter in the following day. He signed the detachable slip and wrote at the bottom, “the terms would be in accordance with the original order form dated January 10” and posted it back to Sheila on January 15. However, Sheila never received the reply from Ben. On 1 February, the Ben had not received the delivery, and he called Sheila. Sheila said she never heard from Ben and assumed he is not interested buying the Silk. Ben responded and said, “a contract was formed between us, deliver it tomorrow or I’ll sue you”. Sheila did not deliver the Egyptian silk to Ben and the price has gone up to $100 per yard now.
Advise Ben and Sheila

我唔識法律，不過shela 有權唔賣喎，唔俾冇晒貨咩，買就一定有貨？

未送貨 未比錢
乜事都冇發生過囉

postal rule ben send 左但sheila冇收到都計acceptance

但佢冇收到最後個counter offer, 咁應該一個contract都冇

Ben 淨係based on Sheila既agreement 俾左counter offer. the counter offer is basically 80 not 90. 而Sheila 冇收到，亦冇根據個counter offer再改佢既offer，所以冇acceptance, 亦都冇contract.

另外，postal rule 雖然話buyer寄出一刻就構成acceptance, 但基本上buyer收到既offer 係90, 佢自己之後簽既係80，寄出既係counter offer，並唔係acceptance。

所以兩者之間冇acceptance, 亦冇contract

我認爲 lol

terms 唔同左
如果terms無變就apply postal rule
shelia無再reply即係無acceptance

Counter offer means the original offer is no longer valid. Postal rule is irrelevant.

樓上基本上都答哂
基本上我覺得答案都係no acceptance

想試下攞分, 可以再夾硬少少
But Shelia included a price variation clause,
it can be argued that it is just a alteration of warranties.
Also, as both parties communicated on Jan 9 about the price
you can argue that it is part of the representations during the stage of invitation to treat