Adams v Lindsell

       

Adams v Lindsell

 Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, is an English contract case regarded as the first case towards the establishment of the "postal rule" for acceptance of an offer. Ordinarily, any form of acceptance must be communicated expressly to an offeror; however, it was found that where a letter of acceptance is posted, an offer is accepted "in course of post".

Facts

The case involved two parties in the sale of wool. On 2 September, the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces of wool and requiring an answer in the course of post. The defendants misdirected the letter so that the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day but it was not received until 9 September. Meanwhile, on 8 September, the defendants, not having received an answer by 7 September as they had expected, sold the wool to someone else.
The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received, and until then they were free to sell the wool to another buyer.

Judgment

Law J said that if that was true it would be impossible to complete any contract through the post; if the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received, then the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had received word that the defendants had received their acceptance, and this could go on indefinitely. Instead it must be considered that the offerors were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post. Then when the Offeree has placed his acceptance in the post there is a fictional meeting of minds, which concludes the offer and gives effect to the acceptance.
The acceptance did not arrive in course of post strictly speaking (all parties understood in course of post to refer to 7 September). But because the delay was the default of the defendant it was taken that the acceptance did arrive in course of post.

Significance

This case in the first step towards establishing the postal acceptance rule (mailbox rule). It was not until 1892 in Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 that the court determined the precise timing of the acceptance, that is the moment the letter of acceptance is posted. (See also Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327).

Notes

1. Beale (2002) p.221
2. Beale (2002) p.222

   References

   Beale, Hugh; Arthur Hartkamp; Hein Kotz; Denis Tallon (2002). Cases, Materials and Texts on Contract Law. Hart Publishing.

Intention to Create Legal Realtions (Domestic Agreement)

Balfour v. Balfour – Case Brief Summary

 

Facts

Mr. Balfour (D) and Mrs. Balfour (P) lived in Ceylon and visited England on a vacation. The plaintiff remained in England for medical treatment and the defendant agreed to send her a specific amount of money each month until she could return. The defendant later asked to remain separated and Mrs. Balfour sued for restitution of her conjugal rights and for alimony equal to the amount her husband had agreed to send.
Mrs. Balfour obtained a decree nisi and five months later was granted an order for alimony. The lower court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and held that the defendant’s promise to send money was enforceable. The court held that Mrs. Balfour’s consent was sufficient consideration to render the contract enforceable and the defendant appealed.

Issues

1. Must both parties intend that an agreement be legally binding in order to be an enforceable contract?
2. Under what circumstances will a court decline to enforce an agreement between spouses?

Holding and Rule

1. Yes. Both parties must intend that an agreement be legally binding in order to be an enforceable contract.
2. The court will not enforce agreements between spouses that involve daily life.

Agreements between husband and wife over matters that affect their daily lives are not subject to contractual interpretation, even when consideration is present. Spouses normally intend that the terms of their agreements can be varied as situations develop. The court held that it was presumed that the parties made the agreement as husband and wife and did not intend that it could be sued upon. The court held that as a matter of public policy it could not resolve disputes between spouses.

Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff Mrs. Balfour reversed.

Note

Contracts related to the social aspect of marriage will not be enforced by the courts. Contracts between spouses related to business relationships can be enforced, however. Courts are willing to support negotiated divorce settlements and written statements of support.

Reference:
 http://www.lawnix.com/cases/balfour-balfour.html

The Principle of Offer and Acceptance (Unilateral Contract)

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.).

- The Principle of Offer and Acceptance (Unilateral Contract)

Carbolic Smoke Ball Advertisement in the Newspaper

 

Facts

Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (D) manufactured and sold The Carbolic Smoke Ball. The company placed ads in various newspapers offering a reward of 100 pounds to any person who used the smoke ball three times per day as directed and contracted influenza, colds, or any other disease. After seeing the ad Carlill (P) purchased a ball and used it as directed. Carlill contracted influenza and made a claim for the reward. Carbolic Smoke Ball refused to pay and Carlill sued for damages arising from breach of contract. Judgment for 100 pounds was entered for Carlill and Carbolic Smoke Ball appealed.

Issue

• Does one who makes a unilateral offer for the sale of goods by means of an advertisement impliedly waive notification of acceptance, if his purpose is to sell as much product as possible?

Holding and Rule (Lindley)

• Yes. One who makes a unilateral offer for the sale of goods by means of an advertisement impliedly waives notification of acceptance if his purpose is to sell as much product as possible.

The court held that a person who makes an offer may decline to require notice of acceptance if he or she wishes. One who makes an offer dispenses with the requirement of notice of acceptance if the form of the offer shows that notice of acceptance is not required. To accept an offer, a person need only follow the indicated method of acceptance. If the offeror either expressly or impliedly intimates in his offer that it will be sufficient to act without giving notice of acceptance, performance is sufficient acceptance without notification.
The court held that an advertisement is considered to be an offer when it specifies the quantity of persons who are eligible to accept its terms. If such an advertisement requires performance, the offeree is not required to give notice of his performance.
The court addressed the issue of whether the ad was intended to be a promise or whether it was merely “puffing”. The court pointed to Carbolic Smoke Ball’s claim in the advertisement that it had deposited 1000 pounds with Alliance Bank, which the court decided was intended to demonstrate the company’s sincerity in paying the reward.

Concurring (Bowen)

Notification of acceptance is required under our law. The person who makes the offer may dispense with notice to himself if he thinks it desirable to do so. He may expressly or impliedly create any method of acceptance for his offer. An offeree need only follow the method indicated for acceptance. The requirement of notice of acceptance to the offeror must be determined by an objective reasonable person standard.
In the advertisement case, it seems to me that an inference may be drawn from the transaction itself that a person is not to notify his acceptance of the offer before he performs the condition, but that if he performs the condition notification is dispensed with. We must look to the essence of the transaction and what the offeror is bargaining for under the circumstances. Under these facts, the defendant impliedly indicated that it did not require notification of acceptance of the offer.

Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

  Reference

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/carlill.htm

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/carlill-carbolic-smoke-ball.html