offer. The plaintiff’s letter
of acceptance was received on 9/9/1817. It was held that there was a contract between the parties as the plaintiff had posted the letter of acceptance by the time the defendant purported to revoke the offer. Hence, the revocation was ineffective.
b) Implied authorization:There are circumstances in which the offeror by implication authorized the offeree to communicate acceptance by post. In
Household Fire Insurance Co.-v-Grant, the defendant offered to buy shares to the plaintiff company. The offer was communicated by post.
The Company allotted the shares to him and the company secretary made out the letter of allotment which was posted but never reached the defendant who was subsequently sued for the amount due on the shares.
He denied liability on the ground that the company had not communicated its acceptance. However, it was held that since the company had posted the letter of acceptance, there was a contract and the defendant was liable. In
Henthorn v. Fraser, X made an offer to Y to take up a lease. On the following
day between noon and pm, X posted a letter withdrawing the offer which was received by Y at pm. At pm on the same day, Y had posted a letter accepting the offer. The letter was read by X on the following day. It was held that there was a contract between parties which came into existence at pm when Y posted the letter of acceptance.
The purported revocation at pm had no effect. In
Byrne v. Van Tienhoven and Co Ltd on 1/10 the defendant made an offer to sell to eth plaintiff 1000 boxes of tin plates but on 8/10 the defendant posted letter revoking the offer. The same was received on. On 11/10 the plaintiff telegraphed the defendant an acceptance which he confirmed by a letter posted on 15/10. It was held that there was a contract between the parties which come into existence on when the letter of acceptance was posted.
Share with your friends: 
