- Published on
Routledge v Grant (1828) Court of Common Pleas
On 18 March 1825, the defendant submitted a written proposal to purchase a lease from the plaintiff under specific conditions, stating that 'a definitive response will be provided within six weeks from 18 March 1825.' The six-week period concluded on May 1. The defendant retracted his offer on 9 April, and the plaintiff attempted to accept it on 29 April. A determination was made that no enforceable contract existed.
Per Best CJ:
...if six weeks are given on one side to accept the offer, the other has six weeks to put an end to it... Till both parties are agreed, either has a right to be off... As the defendant repudiated the contract on the 9 of April, before the expiration of the six weeks, he had a right to say that the plaintiff should not enforce it afterwards.
On 18 March 1825, the defendant submitted a written proposal to purchase a lease from the plaintiff under specific conditions, stating that 'a definitive response will be provided within six weeks from 18 March 1825.' The six-week period concluded on May 1. The defendant retracted his offer on 9 April, and the plaintiff attempted to accept it on 29 April. A determination was made that no enforceable contract existed.
Per Best CJ:
...if six weeks are given on one side to accept the offer, the other has six weeks to put an end to it... Till both parties are agreed, either has a right to be off... As the defendant repudiated the contract on the 9 of April, before the expiration of the six weeks, he had a right to say that the plaintiff should not enforce it afterwards.
- Published on
Brinkibon Limited v Stahag Stahl GmbH (1982) HL
A contract for the sale of steel bars was executed by telex between the appellants in London and the respondents in Vienna. The appellants requested permission to issue a writ beyond the jurisdiction. The inquiry was, as stated by Lord Wilberforce, 'whether an acceptance transmitted via telex from London and received in Vienna constitutes a contract formed in London or in Vienna.'
The decision in Entores Limited v Miles Far East Corporation was accurate. This was articulated by Lord Wilberforce as a straightforward instance of immediate communication between parties, indicating that the contract, if existent, was established at the time and location the acceptance was received. This occurred in Vienna.
Nonetheless, their Lordships acknowledged the potential that the rule may not be applicable to a more complex telex case. According to Lord Wilberforce:
No universal rule can cover all such cases: they must be resolved by reference to the intentions of the parties, by sound business practice and in some cases by a judgment where the risks should lie.
A contract for the sale of steel bars was executed by telex between the appellants in London and the respondents in Vienna. The appellants requested permission to issue a writ beyond the jurisdiction. The inquiry was, as stated by Lord Wilberforce, 'whether an acceptance transmitted via telex from London and received in Vienna constitutes a contract formed in London or in Vienna.'
The decision in Entores Limited v Miles Far East Corporation was accurate. This was articulated by Lord Wilberforce as a straightforward instance of immediate communication between parties, indicating that the contract, if existent, was established at the time and location the acceptance was received. This occurred in Vienna.
Nonetheless, their Lordships acknowledged the potential that the rule may not be applicable to a more complex telex case. According to Lord Wilberforce:
No universal rule can cover all such cases: they must be resolved by reference to the intentions of the parties, by sound business practice and in some cases by a judgment where the risks should lie.
- Published on
Entores Limited v. Miles Far East Corporation (1955) Court of Appeal
A contract for the sale of 100 tons of copper cathodes was executed via telex between the plaintiff in England and the defendants in the Netherlands. The defendants contested the approval to issue a writ beyond the jurisdiction.
Per Denning LJ
The offer was sent by telex from England...and accepted by telex from Holland. The question for our determination is where was the contract made?
A telex contract is established upon receipt of acceptance, in this instance, in England. Acceptance must generally be conveyed to the offeror, with the postal rule serving as an exception to this principle. The basic rule pertains to instantaneous communications, including face-to-face conversation, telephone calls, and telex. The sender of an acceptance typically knows whether the offeror has received it in such instances. According to Denning LJ (obiter), if a situation occurs where an acceptance is not received and the offeror is culpable for failing to notify the offeree of the issue, the offeror would be estopped from disputing receipt and would be obligated to adhere to the contract.
A contract for the sale of 100 tons of copper cathodes was executed via telex between the plaintiff in England and the defendants in the Netherlands. The defendants contested the approval to issue a writ beyond the jurisdiction.
Per Denning LJ
The offer was sent by telex from England...and accepted by telex from Holland. The question for our determination is where was the contract made?
A telex contract is established upon receipt of acceptance, in this instance, in England. Acceptance must generally be conveyed to the offeror, with the postal rule serving as an exception to this principle. The basic rule pertains to instantaneous communications, including face-to-face conversation, telephone calls, and telex. The sender of an acceptance typically knows whether the offeror has received it in such instances. According to Denning LJ (obiter), if a situation occurs where an acceptance is not received and the offeror is culpable for failing to notify the offeree of the issue, the offeror would be estopped from disputing receipt and would be obligated to adhere to the contract.
