WhatsApp has become a common medium through which people make offers, communicate acceptances, and enter into contracts. But what happens when a WhatsApp message containing an offer is deleted before it is read and is later recovered by the recipient? Nowadays, at the click of a button, deleted WhatsApp messages can easily be recovered with the help of WhatsApp message-recovery applications readily available on the Play Store, such as WAMR. With such applications, even if a message has been deleted for both the sender and the recipient, it can be recovered within seconds, allowing anyone to read it. These applications can also be used to recover deleted WhatsApp media files. However, for it to work, the application must be installed on your phone before the message is deleted. Only then will recovery be possible. Once the application is installed on your phone, it will ask for access to your notifications. When access is granted, it stores the contents of a message from the notification as soon as the message arrives. Therefore, even if the message is subsequently deleted, it can still be read through the recovery application.

The question could be best understood through an illustration. Suppose A sends B a WhatsApp message offering to sell his land for ₹30 lakh. Before B reads the message, A uses WhatsApp's “Delete for Everyone” option. It allows a sender to remove a sent message from both the sender's and recipient's chat. A does so with the intention of withdrawing the offer. B, however, recovers the deleted message using a WhatsApp message-recovery application. Subsequently B reads the offer, and communicates his acceptance to A.

While The Indian contract act 1872 provides the legal framework regulating contracts, it does not expressly address such a situation. What, then, is the legal validity of the proposal, acceptance, and revocation in such circumstances under the Indian Contract Act, 1872?

Does the 'Delete for Everyone' option constitute a valid revocation under Section 3?

Section 3 of The Indian contract act states that communication of a revocation is deemed to be made by any act or omission of the person revoking the proposal, by which they intend to communicate the revocation or which has the effect of communicating it. Two essentials have to be satisfied for a revocation to be valid under Section 3. Firstly, there must be an act or omission. Secondly, such act or omission must be made with the intention of communicating the revocation. From the definition and its essentials, it is clear that a revocation could not only be effected by using clear words, but also through any act or omission, if such act or omission is done with an intention of communicating the revocation.

Within this legal framework, the question as to whether using the “Delete for Everyone” option can be deemed to be an act intended to communicate the revocation under Section 3 becomes relevant.The said option naturally qualifies the first essential of Section 3, as the “Delete for Everyone” option is, by itself, an act. But whether it is an act intended to communicate revocation has to be examined.

WhatsApp has already made it clear, when this feature was launched, that it is intended to delete a message that was sent by mistake. Therefore, WhatsApp's explanation may not be conclusive enough to assume that whenever a message is deleted, such deletion can be deemed to constitute a revocation, as WhatsApp's feature is primarily intended for messages sent by mistake. However, whether the deletion was intended to communicate revocation has to be ascertained through inferences drawn from the previous and subsequent acts of the proposer and the surrounding circumstances.

Sections 4 and 5 raise complex questions.

Section 4 states the essentials that must be satisfied for a valid communication of a proposal, acceptance, or revocation to take place. According to Section 4, the communication of a proposal is said to be complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.

Therefore, for a proposal to be become valid under the act, it should come to the knowledge of the accepting party. The section does not mention the manner in which such knowledge has to be acquired; it only states that the proposal shall come to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made.

In this scenario, even though the knowledge of the proposal came to the person through recovery, and the manner in which such knowledge should be acquired is not mentioned in the statute, the essential requirement, that is, knowledge, may be considered satisfied. This is particularly so because the recovery was made through legal means available to the general public. The Indian contract act, 1872 does not distinguish between knowledge acquired directly from the sender and knowledge acquired indirectly through technological tools. As the offeree becomes aware of the proposal, the mode of acquisition of such knowledge may be immaterial, unless fraud or misconduct is involved.

However, Section 5 states that a proposal can be revoked at any time before the communication of acceptance is complete as against the proposer. Section 4 states that the communication of acceptance is said to be complete as against the proposer when it is put into transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. In this scenario, although the proposer had attempted to revoke the proposal through the “Delete for Everyone” option, the acceptance was subsequently put into transmission to the proposer.

if the “Delete for Everyone” option is not considered a valid form of revocation under section 3, the discussion under Sections 4 and 5 ends there, because if the manner of revocation itself is invalid, the question of when an offer can be revoked becomes irrelevant.

However, even if “Delete for Everyone” is considered a valid form of revocation, the revocation may still legally fail, if the message can be recovered using message-recovery applications. Section 5 itself provides that revocation must take place before the acceptance is complete as against the proposer. If the message is recovered, the proposal will naturally come to the knowledge of the person to whom it was made, enabling that person to communicate their acceptance.

When the message is deleted and a subsequent revocation message is sent

If a person sends a message immediately after deleting the original message, clearly communicating the revocation, such revocation may become legally effective under section 3 as the revocation is clearly communicated. However, Under section 5, the revocation may or may not legally stand. If it has already been communicated in a valid form before such acceptance of proposal is put in transmission to him as stated, the revocation may become legally valid. Such a message can also be considered as a 'Notice of revocation' under section 6 (1). But the possibility of such revocation being invalid cannot be ruled out because sometimes, instead of opening the revocation message, the deleted message could be recovered and opened. If that's the situation the legal position will become more grey. In such cases, courts will have to examine the intention of the proposer to withdraw and also the reliance of the offeree on a deleted message that, remained accessible. Until judicial precedent or legislative amendment clarifies this area, parties must treat WhatsApp as a risky medium for entering into serious contractual relations.

Views are personal.