- Published on
The Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company Ltd v Grant (1879) CA
The plaintiff company's shares were offered for purchase by the defendant. An allocation letter that was sent to the defendant but never showed up accepted the offer. When the company was liquidated, around three years later, the liquidator requested the remaining sums owed on the defendant's shares.
ruled that because the defendant was a shareholder, he was responsible for paying the amount demanded. Applying the postal rule, there was a contract on the posting of the allocation letter as the post was a suitable form of acceptance in this instance. In his dissent, Bramwell LJ contended that acceptance ought to become effective solely upon being conveyed to the proposer.
The plaintiff company's shares were offered for purchase by the defendant. An allocation letter that was sent to the defendant but never showed up accepted the offer. When the company was liquidated, around three years later, the liquidator requested the remaining sums owed on the defendant's shares.
ruled that because the defendant was a shareholder, he was responsible for paying the amount demanded. Applying the postal rule, there was a contract on the posting of the allocation letter as the post was a suitable form of acceptance in this instance. In his dissent, Bramwell LJ contended that acceptance ought to become effective solely upon being conveyed to the proposer.
0 Comments