Byrne v Leon Van Tien Hoven [1880]
Share
Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344 is a landmark case in English contract law, addressing the intricate issue of revocation in the context of the postal rule. The ruling, delivered by Lindley J of the High Court's Common Pleas Division, established a clear distinction between the revocation of an offer and the acceptance of an offer through postal communication.
The case involved Van Tienhoven & Co, who posted a letter from Cardiff to Byrne & Co in New York City, offering 1000 boxes of tinplates for sale on October 1. Byrne & Co received the letter on October 11 and promptly telegraphed their acceptance on the same day. However, on October 8, Van Tienhoven had sent another letter withdrawing their offer due to a 25% increase in tinplate prices, and subsequently, they refused to proceed with the sale.
Lindley J stressed that an offer is revoked only through direct communication with the offeree and that the postal rule does not apply to revocation. While the posting of a letter constitutes a valid acceptance, it does not suffice for a valid revocation of an offer.
Lindley J's judgment articulated the principle that revocation of an offer must be received and understood by the offeree before it becomes effective. The acceptance by the offeree remains valid if it occurs before they receive notice of the revocation. The judge pointed out the foundational premise behind the postal rule cases, highlighting the offeror's express or implied consent to treat an answer sent by post as an acceptance. However, Lindley J argued that this principle was inapplicable to the withdrawal of an offer.
In rejecting the notion that a withdrawal could be effective merely by posting a letter, Lindley J noted the potential for extreme injustice and inconvenience. He highlighted the impracticality of such a scenario, where an offeree who had accepted an offer by post would be uncertain of their position until sufficient time had elapsed to ensure that no withdrawal letter had been posted before their acceptance.
In summary, Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co affirmed that for revocation to be valid, it must be received and comprehended by the offeree before taking effect, a principle distinct from the rules governing acceptance through postal communication.
The case involved Van Tienhoven & Co, who posted a letter from Cardiff to Byrne & Co in New York City, offering 1000 boxes of tinplates for sale on October 1. Byrne & Co received the letter on October 11 and promptly telegraphed their acceptance on the same day. However, on October 8, Van Tienhoven had sent another letter withdrawing their offer due to a 25% increase in tinplate prices, and subsequently, they refused to proceed with the sale.
Lindley J stressed that an offer is revoked only through direct communication with the offeree and that the postal rule does not apply to revocation. While the posting of a letter constitutes a valid acceptance, it does not suffice for a valid revocation of an offer.
Lindley J's judgment articulated the principle that revocation of an offer must be received and understood by the offeree before it becomes effective. The acceptance by the offeree remains valid if it occurs before they receive notice of the revocation. The judge pointed out the foundational premise behind the postal rule cases, highlighting the offeror's express or implied consent to treat an answer sent by post as an acceptance. However, Lindley J argued that this principle was inapplicable to the withdrawal of an offer.
In rejecting the notion that a withdrawal could be effective merely by posting a letter, Lindley J noted the potential for extreme injustice and inconvenience. He highlighted the impracticality of such a scenario, where an offeree who had accepted an offer by post would be uncertain of their position until sufficient time had elapsed to ensure that no withdrawal letter had been posted before their acceptance.
In summary, Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tien Hoven & Co affirmed that for revocation to be valid, it must be received and comprehended by the offeree before taking effect, a principle distinct from the rules governing acceptance through postal communication.
