Case analysisRead the attached report of Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 and answer the following questions: - Essay Example

The respondents attempted to argue that the postal rule should also apply with regard to the letter they sent to the buyer cancelling the offer. The court did not agree with this argument and stated that a revocation of an offer is of no effect until it is brought to the mind of the person to whom the offer had been made and therefore sending such communication by post would not make it effective until the buyer received it. The defendants argued that the postal rule did not apply as no authority had been given to accept the offer by post.

They stated that the reliance on Dunlop v Higgins was flawed as in this case there was an understanding that acceptance could be by post mainly because of the physical distance between the parties. In this case the distance between the defendant and plaintiff was relatively short. The judge rejected this argument stating that the previous offers had been communicated by post even though such offers had been rejected. The judge made the point that a revocation of an offer cannot be valid until it is brought to the knowledge of the buyer as verified by the case of Adams v Lindsell.

If the facts had taken place in 2007 and the claimants letter of acceptance had been wrongly addressed then the judgment of the court would not be the same. In Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV (The “Alexia M”)nEnglish High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Toulson J: [2005] EWHC 1345 (QB): 17 June 2005 the plaintiff’s argued that the postal rule as applied in Adams v Lindsell should apply despite the fact that the communication of the acceptance had been wrongly addressed. The court held that ‘the general rule is that an acceptance has no legal effect until it is communicated to the offeror” (Chitty on Contracts, 29th edn, para 2-034).

The plaintiff sought ot rely on Entores v Miles [1955] 2 QB 327 (CA), “that an acceptance by post is