- Published on
Stevenson, Jaques & Co. v. McLean, 1880
The sequence of events was as follows. (1) The plaintiff buyer received an offer from the defendant seller to purchase a quantity of iron for "40s, nett cash, open till Monday." The buyer sent a telegraph to the seller at 9:42 on Monday morning, asking them to confirm if they would accept forty for delivery over a two-month period, or if not, what the longest limit they would allow. (3) The buyer sent a telegraph to the seller, who did not respond. (4) A third party purchased the iron from the merchant. (5) The seller informed the buyer by telegram that he had sold the iron at 1:25 p.m. (6) The buyer and seller sent a telegraph at 1:34 p.m. stating that they "have secured your price for payment next Monday—write you fully by post." (In that market, it was customary to make payments by the next Monday.) (7) At 1:46 PM, the seller received the telegram in point (5).
Held that, in contrast to Hyde v. Wrench, the buyer's telegram in (2) was merely a question rather than a counteroffer. As a result, the buyer could still accept the initial offer up until the seller's revocation was made known, which didn't happen until (7). The seller was therefore required to sell to the buyer as his acceptance at point (6) was effective.
The sequence of events was as follows. (1) The plaintiff buyer received an offer from the defendant seller to purchase a quantity of iron for "40s, nett cash, open till Monday." The buyer sent a telegraph to the seller at 9:42 on Monday morning, asking them to confirm if they would accept forty for delivery over a two-month period, or if not, what the longest limit they would allow. (3) The buyer sent a telegraph to the seller, who did not respond. (4) A third party purchased the iron from the merchant. (5) The seller informed the buyer by telegram that he had sold the iron at 1:25 p.m. (6) The buyer and seller sent a telegraph at 1:34 p.m. stating that they "have secured your price for payment next Monday—write you fully by post." (In that market, it was customary to make payments by the next Monday.) (7) At 1:46 PM, the seller received the telegram in point (5).
Held that, in contrast to Hyde v. Wrench, the buyer's telegram in (2) was merely a question rather than a counteroffer. As a result, the buyer could still accept the initial offer up until the seller's revocation was made known, which didn't happen until (7). The seller was therefore required to sell to the buyer as his acceptance at point (6) was effective.
0 Comments