(c.) the subject to contract exclusionary principle found in the case of Cheverny Consulting Limited v Whitehead Mann Ltd which as defined by Neil Andrews is ‘…a shared understanding that the relevant consensus is not legally effective as a contract’ was applicable in this case. Lord Justice Neuberger in his judgement states that the points raised by the appellant were valid. He believed the information obtained from the third, fourth and fifth emails implied that the offer had been rejected. His judgement states that the respondent’s failure to communicate acceptance within the given time frame made the offer inoperative. Lady Smith LJ also affirmed that in the third email Mr. Jenkins made it clear that the appellant believed there would be no contract until the Dixon Ward draft had been signed by both parties. Hence, the appeal was allowed unanimously and the judgement of the High Court was reversed. 4. This case encapsulates the difficulty involved in the establishment of acceptance via email which following precedent depends on the facts, intentions and conduct of the parties involved and the accepted business practice. There is no definitive rule for acceptance. It does not follow the postal rule or the receipt rule and this could be detrimental as shown in this case where two different judges considering the same facts came about different conclusions. It also reaffirms the existing case law on the subject to contract principle as found in Cheverny Consulting Limited v Whitehead Mann Ltd which states that a shared agreement on the provisions of the contract do not make it legally binding until a draft agreement has been signed by the parties involved. It could serve as a good example in the illustration of the time lapse rule of contract law. On a moral level one could argue that Mr. Bragg by reason of his conduct which include excluding Mr. Grant from the affairs of the company and enjoying all the benefits that would come from the acquisition of Mr. Grant’s shares even though he was yet to purchase the shares should buy the shares regardless of whether or not there was a contract since he had alre>