Citation(s) [1880] 5 CPD 344 | Ruling court Court of Common Pleas | |
 | ||
Full case name Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co Judge sitting Nathaniel Lindley, Baron Lindley Similar Hyde v Wrench, Adams v Lindsell, Felthouse v Bindley, Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp, Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boot | ||
Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344 is a leading English contract law case on the issue of revocation in relation to the postal rule. In it Lindley J of the High Court Common Pleas Division ruled that an offer is only revoked by direct communication with the offeree, and that the postal rule does not apply in revocation; while simply posting a letter counts as a valid acceptance, it does not count as valid revocation.
Contents
Facts
Van Tienhoven & Co posted a letter from their office in Cardiff to Byrne & Co in New York City, offering 1000 boxes of tinplates for sale on 1 October. Byrne and Co got the letter on 11 October. They telegraphed acceptance on the same day. But on 8 October Van Tienhoven had sent another letter withdrawing their offer, because tinplate prices had just risen 25%. They refused to go through with the sale.
Judgement
Lindley J held that the withdrawal of the offer was not effective until it was communicated. His judgment stated the following.
Rule of law
Revocation of an offer must be received and understood by the offeree before it comes into effect. An acceptance by the offeree before they receive notice of the revocation will be considered valid.