- Published on
Adams v Lindsell (1818) CKB
In a letter dated September 2, 1817, the defendants offered to sell the plaintiffs "800 tons of wether fleeces" and requested a response "in course of post." But the letter from the defendants was misdirected, and the plaintiffs didn't receive it until September 5th. That evening, the plaintiffs responded, and on September 9th, the defendants received their response. Presuming there was no deception, the defendants sold the wool to someone else on September 8th because they knew they would hear back on September 7th.
Contracts held by mail would be unfeasible if acceptance was contingent upon offeror receipt. Given that the defendants caused the delay, "it Consequently, it must be construed as against them that the plaintiffs' response was obtained via post.
The "postal rule," which states that an offer is accepted when it is posted and is valid for posting, originated from this case. The postal rule is specifically excluded in many commercial contracts.
In a letter dated September 2, 1817, the defendants offered to sell the plaintiffs "800 tons of wether fleeces" and requested a response "in course of post." But the letter from the defendants was misdirected, and the plaintiffs didn't receive it until September 5th. That evening, the plaintiffs responded, and on September 9th, the defendants received their response. Presuming there was no deception, the defendants sold the wool to someone else on September 8th because they knew they would hear back on September 7th.
Contracts held by mail would be unfeasible if acceptance was contingent upon offeror receipt. Given that the defendants caused the delay, "it Consequently, it must be construed as against them that the plaintiffs' response was obtained via post.
The "postal rule," which states that an offer is accepted when it is posted and is valid for posting, originated from this case. The postal rule is specifically excluded in many commercial contracts.
0 Comments