If a seller announces 'sold' in a Facebook Live comment, is that a legally binding acceptance?

The dual legal basis — SGA §64(b) and ICA §2(b) working together

Two statutory provisions create the binding effect of the 'sold' comment. First, Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines acceptance as 'when the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto.' The seller who posts 'sold to [bidder name]' is signifying their assent to the bidder's proposal — they are accepting the bid. Second, Section 64(b) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 provides that 'the sale is complete when the auctioneer announces its completion by the fall of the hammer or in any other customary manner.' A typed 'sold' comment in the ongoing auction's comment stream is a customary manner of announcing completion in the context of a digital auction.

Section 10A of the IT Act 2000 ties these together by confirming that an electronic acceptance has the same legal validity as a physical one. The comment's electronic form does not reduce its binding effect.

The timestamp — when exactly is the contract formed?

The contract is formed at the moment the 'sold' comment becomes visible — the question is whether this is the server timestamp (when Facebook's servers record the post) or the display timestamp (when the seller's screen shows the comment as published). In practice, these are typically within seconds of each other. The authoritative timestamp for legal purposes is the Facebook server timestamp — this is the record in Facebook's systems of when the communication was made.

The practical implication: if a seller posts 'sold' and a bidder simultaneously posts 'cancel,' the question of which event legally occurred first is determined by comparing their Facebook server timestamps. In a consumer forum dispute, Facebook's records — obtainable through a court or forum order — would establish the sequence.

What 'sold' must contain to be unambiguous

The most legally defensible 'sold' announcement identifies the buyer and the price: 'Sold to [name] at ₹[amount].' A bare 'sold' without identifying who won creates ambiguity — particularly if multiple people were bidding simultaneously. The seller who announces 'sold at ₹5,000' without naming the winner has announced completion but not identified the buyer, creating a potential dispute about which bidder at ₹5,000 won if multiple bids arrived.

Laws & authorities referenced in this chapter

Indian Contract Act 1872 — §2(b) (acceptance; signifying assent to proposal)

Sale of Goods Act 1930 — §64(b) (sale complete on customary announcement of completion)

IT Act 2000 — §10A (electronic acceptance has same legal validity as physical)

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 — §61 (Facebook comments are admissible electronic records)