EdgarAllanPoe
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
I need some help with this case:
Drew and Lucy werelong standing acquaintances who regularly had businessdealings with oneanother. On 1st November, Drew, from his home address in
Northampton, wroteto Lucy at her address in Bristol, offering to sell her his
customised RenaultClio motor car, (which she has long admired), for £7,000, the
offer to remainopen until 5th November. On receiving the offer on 2nd November,
Lucy left Bristolon a business trip to Liverpool. On the 2nd November Drew sold the
car to Kelly andposted to Lucy a revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Lucy’s Bristol address on3rd November. On 4th November, Lucy posted an acceptance ofthe offer fromLiverpool, addressed to Drew at his business address, (which was the address from whichDrew usually conducted dealings with Lucy) in Coventry. It was delivered there on5th November but as Drew was absent from his office on that day,it wasn’t read byhim until 6th November. On 7th November Lucy returned home and read the letter ofrevocation.
Lucy claimed thata contract had been formed between herself and Drew, in that she had accepted theoffer either on 4th November through the application of the postal rule, or on the5th November when the letter was delivered to Drew’s place of
business. Bothevents took place before the offer lapsed and before Drew’s letter of
revocation wascommunicated to her.

Held by Nonsuch J.:
1. that the postalrule did not operate to form a contract on 4th November, since
the acceptance wasposted to the wrong address. In such a case, the postal rule
becomes displacedand the acceptance does not take place until the letter of
acceptance isreceived and read, (i.e. on 6th November) by which time the
offer had lapsed.The court accepted the U.S.case of Eliason v. Henshaw 4
Wheat 225, asbeing a correct application of principle.
2. in any case,the offer had been revoked before Lucy’s letter of acceptance had
been posted.Although the rule is that an offer is not revoked until the
revocation iscommunicated to the offeree, in this case ‘communicated’ meant
that the offereeshould be given a reasonable time to read the letter of
revocation, onceit had been delivered to the place from which the offer had
been made and atwhich the offeree was reasonably supposed to be present. This, at thelatest, was at the close of business on 3rd November.
Lucy is appealingagainst both findings.
I am the appellant on the first ground and I cannot found any cases to support my case! HELP!
0
reply
EdgarAllanPoe
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by EdgarAllanPoe)
I need some help with this case:
Drew and Lucy werelong standing acquaintances who regularly had businessdealings with oneanother. On 1st November, Drew, from his home address in
Northampton, wroteto Lucy at her address in Bristol, offering to sell her his
customised RenaultClio motor car, (which she has long admired), for £7,000, the
offer to remainopen until 5th November. On receiving the offer on 2nd November,
Lucy left Bristolon a business trip to Liverpool. On the 2nd November Drew sold the
car to Kelly andposted to Lucy a revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Lucy’s Bristol address on3rd November. On 4th November, Lucy posted an acceptance ofthe offer fromLiverpool, addressed to Drew at his business address, (which was the address from whichDrew usually conducted dealings with Lucy) in Coventry. It was delivered there on5th November but as Drew was absent from his office on that day,it wasn’t read byhim until 6th November. On 7th November Lucy returned home and read the letter ofrevocation.
Lucy claimed thata contract had been formed between herself and Drew, in that she had accepted theoffer either on 4th November through the application of the postal rule, or on the5th November when the letter was delivered to Drew’s place of
business. Bothevents took place before the offer lapsed and before Drew’s letter of
revocation wascommunicated to her.

Held by Nonsuch J.:
1. that the postalrule did not operate to form a contract on 4th November, since
the acceptance wasposted to the wrong address. In such a case, the postal rule
becomes displacedand the acceptance does not take place until the letter of
acceptance isreceived and read, (i.e. on 6th November) by which time the
offer had lapsed.The court accepted the U.S.case of Eliason v. Henshaw 4
Wheat 225, asbeing a correct application of principle.
2. in any case,the offer had been revoked before Lucy’s letter of acceptance had
been posted.Although the rule is that an offer is not revoked until the
revocation iscommunicated to the offeree, in this case ‘communicated’ meant
that the offereeshould be given a reasonable time to read the letter of
revocation, onceit had been delivered to the place from which the offer had
been made and atwhich the offeree was reasonably supposed to be present. This, at thelatest, was at the close of business on 3rd November.
Lucy is appealingagainst both findings.
I am the appellant on the first ground and I cannot found any cases to support my case! HELP!
bump
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (18)
28.13%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (5)
7.81%
No I am happy with my choice (37)
57.81%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (4)
6.25%

Watched Threads

View All