_HelpMeLegally_
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
I'm a first time mooter and I'm the respondent for this case.

Lucy v Drew

- If an offer is revoked it needs to be communicated. Any authorities on this? I can't seem to find a way to argue this.

Drew and Lucy were long standing acquaintances who regularly had business
dealings with one another. On 1st November, Drew, from his home address in
Northampton, wrote to Lucy at her address in Bristol, offering to sell her his
customised Renault Clio motor car, (which she has long admired), for £7,000, the
offer to remain open until 5th November. On receiving the offer on 2nd November,
Lucy left Bristol on a business trip to Liverpool. On the 2nd November Drew sold the
car to Kelly and posted to Lucy a revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Lucy’s
Bristol address on 3rd November. On 4th November, Lucy posted an acceptance of
the offer from Liverpool, addressed to Drew at his business address, (which was the
address from which Drew usually conducted dealings with Lucy) in Coventry. It was
delivered there on 5th November but as Drew was absent from his office on that day,
it wasn’t read by him until 6th November. On 7th November Lucy returned home and
read the letter of revocation.


Lucy claimed that a contract had been formed between herself and Drew, in that she
had accepted the offer either on 4th November through the application of the postal
rule, or on the 5th November when the letter was delivered to Drew’s place of
business. Both events took place before the offer lapsed and before Drew’s letter of
revocation was communicated to her.


Held by Nonsuch J.:

1. that the postal rule did not operate to form a contract on 4th November, since
the acceptance was posted to the wrong address. In such a case, the postal rule
becomes displaced and the acceptance does not take place until the letter of
acceptance is received 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, as being 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 in any case, the offer had been revoked before Lucy’s letter of acceptance had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 is communicated to the offeree, in this case ‘communicated’ meant
that the offeree should be given a reasonable time to read the letter of
revocation, once it had been delivered to the place from which the offer had
been made and at which the offeree was reasonably supposed to be present.
This, at the latest, was at the close of business on 3rd November.

Lucy is appealing against both findings.

I'm the respondent to this case. please help!! Thank you
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

University open days

  • University of Hertfordshire
    All Subjects Undergraduate
    Wed, 11 Dec '19
  • University of Lincoln
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 11 Dec '19
  • Bournemouth University
    Undergraduate Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 11 Dec '19

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (202)
18.72%
Labour (557)
51.62%
Liberal Democrats (145)
13.44%
Green Party (60)
5.56%
Brexit Party (15)
1.39%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (4)
0.37%
SNP (17)
1.58%
Plaid Cymru (5)
0.46%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (7)
0.65%
SDLP (2)
0.19%
Ulster Unionist (4)
0.37%
UKIP (11)
1.02%
Other (11)
1.02%
None (39)
3.61%

Watched Threads

View All