Emails are similar to postal mailings in that a third party or agent controls the delivery. But holding a bidder responsible for a contract in which the email was lost or undelivered seems difficult. In Scotland, the postal rule is adopted but judges decide who is responsible on a case-by-case basis in the event of loss of acceptance. For example, in the case of Mason v Benhar Coal Co (1882) 9 R 883, Lord Shand said that the contract would not stand simply because it had been published, the rule was in place to deal with the issue of revocation . This was also reestablished in the Irish courts when it was held that it was unfair to hold a party to a contract which they did not know they had entered into Kelly v Cruise Catering Ltd [1994] 2 ILRM 394. This would be one of Aratakis' suggestions for amendments, holding our company responsible for the fact that we did not receive the electronic communication seems neither justified nor satisfactory. The beneficiary benefits from the contract and the risk must therefore be weighted.