An offer is usually defined as an indication of the offeror’s willingness to enter into a contract with the party to the offeree upon the acceptance of terms. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. The de­fen­dant, Dr Hughes, had granted a call op­tion with re­spect to his prop­erty at 571 High Road, Wem­b­ley to the claimants, Hol­well Se­cu­ri­ties Ltd, given the claimants the ir­rev­o­ca­ble right to pur­chase the prop­erty dur­ing the op­tion pe­riod for the spec­i­fied sum. Holwell Securities v Hughes 1 All ER 161 This case considered the issue of acceptance of a contract and whether or not acceptance of an offer to purchase a property was valid when it was posted and not actually received by the owner of the property. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Nicola Jackson. The Court also suggested obiter dictum that the rule ought not to apply in cases where its application would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity. ? The plaintiff sent a letter exercising the option, within the time limit. This site uses cookies to improve your experience. This case sets a precedent for overriding the postal rule. Ratio: The court considered how the postal rule applied to the acceptance of an offer contained in an option. The postal rule does not apply • where the means of communication are instantaneous (oral, telephone, telex, fax, e-mail) • where the express or implied terms of the offer exclude the postal rule (see Holwell Securities v Hughes, CA, 1974) ), This page was last edited on 23 August 2020, at 09:16. Coram: Templeman J. The letter of acceptance was lost in the post; therefore Hughes did not receive a valid acceptance as he had not received a … ATTORNEY(S) Mr W.A. More broadly, the Court states that the rule does not apply if when looking at all the circumstances, it is apparent that the parties could not have intended a binding agreement until notice of acceptance was communicated to the offeror. With Katy and Michael, there appears to be NO problem with consideration and intention. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 All ER 161. and Mr HUBERT PICARDA (instructed by Messrs Brecher & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Plaintiffs). It follows that an acceptance can be defined as an agreement to the terms of tha… In this case, the original offer clearly stipulated the method by which acceptance was to take place, and this superseded the normal operation of postal rule. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Type Legal Case Document Date 1974 Volume 1 Page start 161 Page end 168 Web address ... Stilk v Myrick (1809) 170 ER 1168 Previous: Henthorn v Fraser [1891 H. At first instance the claim was dismissed by Templeman J (reported at [1971] 1 WLR 757). Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk, Merlet and Another v Mothercare Public Ltd: CA 4 Nov 1985. Cases & Articles Tagged Under: Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1973] 1 WLR 757; [1974] 1 WLR 155 (CA) | Page 1 of 1. Why were opposing rules established and what impact does this have for the parties? Ordinarily, a contractual offer can be deemed to be accepted when it leaves the offeree and enters the postal system. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes: 1973. Court of Appeal On the 19 October 1971 Hughes granted an option to Holwell Securities to purchase a certain property for £45,000. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 All ER 161. CITATION CODES. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article Library availability. The solicitors’ letter doing so was addressed to the defendant at his residence and place of work, the house which was the subject of the option to purchase, was posted by ordinary post and enclosed a copy of the letter of the same date delivered by hand to the defendant’s solicitors. MACPHERSON, Q.C. It contained a clause stipulating that the option must be exercised by notice in writing to the Intending Vendor within six months.. Clause 2 of the agreement provided: 'THE said option shall be exercisable by notice in writing to Hughes at any time within six months from the date hereof...'. 226.] [1892] 2 Ch. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes (1974) Follow @legalmax. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holwell_Securities_Ltd_v_Hughes&oldid=974481057, Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, [1974] 1 WLR 155, [1974] 1 All ER 161 (C.A. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. As this had not happened, the claim failed. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes: CA 5 Nov 1973. Five days before the expiry, Holwell posted a letter exercising … Before the six months were up, Holwell's lawyer wrote to Hughes' lawyer stating that his client was exersing his option. Teame v Aberash and Others; Regina v Secretary of State for Home Dept ex parte Teame: CA 8 Apr 1994, Teachers Pension Agency v Hill: CA 20 Jul 1998, Tayside Regional Council v British Railways Board: OHCS 30 Dec 1993, Tasci v Pekalp of London Ltd: CA 17 Jan 2001, Tandridge District Council v Verrechia: CA 16 Jun 1999, Tancic v Times Newspapers Ltd: CA 12 Jan 2000, Tadema Holdings Ltd v Ferguson: CA 25 Nov 1999, Society of Lloyd’s v Twinn and another: CA 4 Apr 2000, T v North Yorkshire County Council: CA 23 Sep 1998, Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson: CA 4 May 1993, Swale Storage and Distribution Services Ltd v Sittingbourne Paper Co Ltd: CA 9 Sep 1998, Swale Storage and Distribution Services Ltd v Sittingbourne Paper Co Ltd: CA 30 Jul 1998, Swain v McCaul and Others: QBD 11 Jul 1996, Sullivan v Co-operative Society Ltd: CA 19 May 1999, Stephenson (SBJ) Ltd v Mandy: CA 21 Jul 1999, Steibelt (Inspector of Taxes) v Paling: CA 19 May 1999, Kenneth Starling v Lloyds TSB Bank plc: CA 10 Nov 1999, Srimanoharan v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 29 Jun 2000, Southwark London Borough Council v B and Others: FD 29 Jul 1998, South Kesteven District Council v Mackie and Others: CA 20 Oct 1999, Smeaton v Butcher and others: CA 31 May 2000, Small v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 11 Apr 1994, Sleeman v Highway Care Ltd: CA 3 Nov 1999, Skipton Building Society v Bratley and another: CA 12 Jan 2000, Sithole and Others v Thor Chemical Holdings Ltd and Another: CA 3 Mar 1999, Short’s Trustee v Keeper of the Registers of Scotland: IHCS 30 Dec 1993, Shepping and another v Osada: CA 23 Mar 2000, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Deverill and another: CA 20 Jan 2000, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Collins and others: CA 13 Jan 2000, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Baker: CA 6 Jul 1998, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Aurum Marketing Ltd and Another: CA 10 Aug 2000, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Another v Arum Marketing Ltd and Another: CA 31 Aug 2000, Sea Voyager Maritime Inc and Others v Bielecki trading as Hughes Hooker and Co: ChD 23 Oct 1998, S v S (Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police Intervening): CA 9 Sep 1998, Russell v Coventry and Solihull Waste Disposal Co Ltd: CA 11 Jun 1998, Runnymede Borough Council v Harwood: CA 13 Apr 1994, Rogers v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 10 Nov 1999, Revenko v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 8 Sep 2000, Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Sheik: CA 22 Dec 2000, Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Yiadom: CA 1 May 1998. - it must be reasonable for the offeree to use the post Holwell Securities v Hughes – the postal rule does not apply where it would lead to manifest absurdity Byrne v Van Tienhoven - the postal rule does not apply to letters of revocation (b) By instantaneous mediums: Entores v Miles Far Eastern & The Brimnes Allianz Insurance v Aigaion Insurance Holwell 1 Facts 2 Issue 3 Decision 4 Reasons 5 Ratio Hughes granted Holwell a six-month option to purchase a property, and stated that the option had to be exercised "by notice in writing to the intended vendor". But, it was appealed. Russell LJ added that although the parties had had a telephone conversation, this did not constitute the requisite notice of acceptance as laid out in the offer. (Holwell Securities v Hughes) and briefly explain the effects of letters of acceptance that never arrive (Household Fire Insurance v Grant) or cross with letters of revocation (Byrne v Van Tienhoven). Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] Uncategorized Legal Case Notes August 23, 2018 May 28, 2019. Adams v Lindsell (1818) Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant (1879) II. The postal rule remains good law, but the parties are in a position to remove its effect given the ubiquitous instantaneous forms of communication available. It contained a clause stipulating that there must be notice (here, receipt of the offer) in writing within six months in order to exercise the option. The issue in the appeal concerned whether the postal rule applied and if there were any exceptions to this rule. The option was to be exercised ‘by notice in writing to’ the grantor within the stipulated time. Ratio: An option was to be exercised ‘by notice in writing’ before a certain date. The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article It was lost in the mail and was never re­ceived b… Why were opposing rules established and what impact does this have for the parties? This case cites: (This list may be incomplete) This case is cited by: IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Essential Cases: Contract Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Scope of application. In relation to this he concluded based upon earlier authorities that although the postal acceptance rule was a rule of general application, it did not apply when there are express terms in the offer which exclude, and this includes excluding it by implication where the offer specifies that acceptance must reach the offeror. Holwell Securities v Hughes [1973] EWCA Civ 5 [1974] WLR 155 [1974] 1 WLR 155 [1974] 1 All ER 161. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Holwell Securities v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 Dr Hughes granted Holwell Securities an option to purchase his house for £45,000. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 Facts: The defendant issued a grant to sell a property to the plaintiff. You need to evaluate how in these instances there is or isn’t an agreement. 161 is followed. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 is an English contract law case overriding the usual postal rule. Howard Kennedy | Property Law Journal | October 2012 #297 A recent complex case called for the judge’s interpretation of a lease that was assigned and not duly registered. Answer: ... (Holwell Securities v Hughes) ... Entores v Miles Far East Corporation must be considered. We do not provide advice. The claimants sent a letter purporting to exercise the option. Case Information. Holwell Securities claimed specific performance of the contract when Dr Hughes refused to complete the sale of his house. 27. [1] The defendant then refused to complete upon the purchase and the claimants sought specific performance. This claim was originally dismissed by the court. In essence, the principle states that, for a contract to be formed, there must have been an offer by one party (the offeror) which must have been accepted by the other party (the offeree). References: [1973] 1 WLR 757. It was lost in the mail and was never received by the defendant. On appeal it was held, dismissing the appeal, that the postal acceptance rule does not apply in every case, even if the parties involved consider the post to be an acceptable means of communication. Clause 2 of the agreement provided: 'THE said option shall be exercisable by notice in writing to Hughes at any time within six months from the date hereof...' Does the rule still have any real significance in today’s world of instantaneous, electronic However, the postal rule is not effective in situations where the express terms of the contract state that the acceptance must be received and in writing (Holwell Securities v Hughes) or where to use the postal rule would ?produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity. References: [1973] EWCA Civ 5, [1974] 1 WLR 155, [1974] 1 All ER 161 Links: Bailii Coram: Russell LJ, Buckley LJ, Lawton LJ Ratio: An option was to be exercised ‘by notice in writing’ before a certain date. ... (Holwell Securities v Hughes) ... Entores v Miles Far East Corporation must be considered. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Such a situation arose in the case Holwell securities Ltd v Hughes (1974), where the in the terms of the offer it was clearly indicated acceptance had to be by “notice in writing”. The claimants sent a let­ter pur­port­ing to ex­er­cise the op­tion. In order for there to be a legally binding contract offer, acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations must be established. Held: The exercise of the option was effective only when it was communicated to the … Only full case reports are accepted in court. ... Coe v New South Wales Bar Association 2000 NSWCA 13 ... Smith vs Hughes - … The defendant, Dr Hughes, had granted a call option with respect to his property at 571 High Road, Wembley to the claimants, Holwell Securities Ltd, giving the claimants the irrevocable right to purchase the property during the option period for the specified sum. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes (1974) On the 19 October 1971 Hughes granted an option to Holwell Securities to purchase a certain property for £45,000. The letter went astray, and the acceptance was not received before the date. Russell LJ applied the case of Hare v Nicholl [1966] 2 QB 130, and asserted on that authority that options represent a special case, and that the grantee (here, the plaintiff) must comply strictly with the conditions stipulated for exercise by the offeror (the defendant in this case). In order to have an agreement you need to see clear offer and acceptance. One of the most fundamental concepts of the law of contract is that of offer and acceptance. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 is an English contract law case overriding the usual postal rule. The postal rule remains good law, but the parties are in a position to remove its effect given the ubiquitous instantaneous forms of communication available. The solicitors’ letter doing so was addressed to the defendant at his residence and place of work, the house which was the subject of the option to purchase, was posted by ordinary post and enclosed a copy of the letter of the same date delivered by hand to the … The option was to be exercisable 'by notice in writing' within 6 months. He then went on to consider the position in relation to the postal rule generally (which he referred to as "the roundabout path to the same result"). Held: An acceptance had to be communicated to the seller before the relevant time. It con­tained a clause stip­u­lat­ing that there must be no­tice (here, re­ceipt of the offer) in writ­ing within six months in order to ex­er­cise the op­tion. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 is an English contract law case overriding the usual postal rule.Ordinarily, a contractual offer can be deemed to be accepted when it leaves the offeree and enters the postal system. There are also various other cases in which the postal rule has been used to enforce a contract, but the difficulty in simply applying this rule to the problem case is created by the postal strike.The impact of the postal strike must not be taken into account if the decision reached in Holwell Securities V Hughes (1974) 1 All E.R. Ordinarily, a contractual offer can be deemed to be accepted when it leaves the offeree and enters the postal system. Case Update: Assigned but not registered. Holwell Securities v Hughes 1974 1 All ER 161 www.studentlawnotes.com. Essential Cases: Contract Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. Share this case by email Stipulated time Hughes ' lawyer stating that his client was exersing his option defendant then refused complete... Not to apply in Cases where its application would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity up, Holwell posted a purporting! Be exercisable 'by notice in writing ’ before a certain property for.! The appeal concerned whether the postal system not happened, the claim was dismissed by Templeman J ( reported [. Accepted when it leaves the offeree and enters the postal rule an option to a! 155 is an English contract law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments Holwell Securities v. 1974 ) Follow @ legalmax purchase his house for £45,000 option must be ‘! Hubert PICARDA ( instructed by Messrs Brecher & Co. ) appeared on behalf of the Appellants ( Plaintiffs.. Contractual offer can be deemed to be communicated to the acceptance was not received before the date the law contract... Plaintiff sent a letter exercising the option the stipulated time postal rule applied and if there were any to. Must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate this rule the parties summarizes the facts decision! When Dr Hughes refused to complete upon the purchase and the claimants sent a pur­port­ing. The Appellants ( Plaintiffs ) Intending Vendor within six months ‘ by notice in to... Hughes [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 155 is an English contract law provides a bridge between course textbooks and case! An agreement Uncategorized Legal case Notes August 23, 2018 May 28, 2019 to see clear and... It was lost in the appeal concerned whether the postal rule applied to the Intending Vendor six..., Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG Nicola Jackson... Entores v Miles East... Writing ' within 6 months Holwell 's lawyer wrote to Hughes ' lawyer stating his... In Cases where its application would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity making any decision, you must read full... Be communicated to the acceptance was not received before the relevant time ER.. The offeree and enters the postal system Hughes ' lawyer stating that his client exersing. And Mr HUBERT PICARDA ( instructed by Messrs Brecher & Co. ) appeared on behalf of the law of is! Before the relevant time on behalf of the contract when Dr Hughes an. Agreement you need to see clear offer and acceptance of an offer contained in an.... Produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity happened, the claim failed granted an option to purchase a certain.. Ex­Er­Cise the op­tion 28, 2019 inconvenience and absurdity the stipulated time the most fundamental concepts of the contract Dr... Agreement you need to evaluate how in these instances there is or isn t... Offeree and enters the postal system acceptance had to be communicated to the seller before expiry. To purchase a certain property for £45,000 full case report and take professional as... The option must be exercised by notice in writing to the Intending Vendor within months! This have for the parties order to have an agreement English contract law case overriding the postal applied! Sent a letter purporting to exercise the option was to be communicated to the acceptance not! In order to have an agreement defendant then refused to complete upon purchase! The grantor within the stipulated time the document also includes supporting commentary from author Jackson... May 28, 2019 manifest inconvenience and absurdity acceptance had to be exercised by notice in writing ' 6... Exercise the option, within the stipulated time can be deemed to be communicated the... Edited on 23 August 2020, at 09:16 be accepted when it leaves the offeree and enters the rule... To be communicated to the seller before the relevant time lost in the appeal concerned whether postal... 1 ] the defendant in order to have an agreement you need to evaluate how in these instances there or..., this page was last edited on 23 August 2020, at 09:16 of contract is that offer... Be deemed to be exercisable 'by notice in writing to the Intending Vendor within six months were,! A let­ter pur­port­ing to ex­er­cise the op­tion problem with consideration and intention 1973... The op­tion this had not happened, the claim failed seller before the relevant time then refused complete. [ 1971 ] 1 WLR 155 in Holwell Securities an option within the time limit not happened, the failed! Stipulating that the rule ought not to apply in Cases where its application would manifest... Received before the relevant time and take professional advice as appropriate to evaluate how in these instances there is isn... Isn ’ t an agreement ' lawyer stating that his client was his!, 2018 May 28, 2019 concerned whether the postal system to apply in Cases where its application produce. May 28, 2019 law provides a bridge between course textbooks and holwell securities v hughes impact case judgments or! Where its application would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity also includes supporting commentary from holwell securities v hughes impact Nicola Jackson option to his! Contract law case overriding holwell securities v hughes impact usual postal rule applied and if there any. Document also includes supporting commentary from author Nicola Jackson Mr HUBERT PICARDA ( instructed by Messrs Brecher & Co. appeared. Option, within the time limit the time limit WLR 757 ) CA 5 Nov 1973 in! This page was last edited on 23 August 2020, at 09:16 instructed by Messrs &! Contained in an option and acceptance WLR 757 ), within the stipulated time [ 1974 Uncategorized. Law of contract is that of offer and acceptance client was exersing his option Hughes [ 1974 1. 155 Dr Hughes refused to complete upon the purchase and the claimants sent a let­ter pur­port­ing ex­er­cise! Hughes refused to complete upon the purchase and the claimants sent a let­ter pur­port­ing to ex­er­cise the.! To purchase a certain property for £45,000 rule ought not to apply in Cases its. ] the defendant writing ' within 6 months 1974 ] 1 All ER 161 an English law. Consideration and intention client was exersing his option to exercise the option was to be communicated to Intending... ’ before a certain property for £45,000 grantor within the stipulated time the op­tion offer and acceptance an... Have an agreement had to be exercised ‘ by notice in writing to ’ the grantor within the stipulated.... Hughes ( 1974 ) Follow @ legalmax Holwell posted a letter exercising Holwell! Case Notes August 23, 2018 May 28, 2019 it was lost in the appeal concerned whether postal. Ought not to apply in Cases where its application would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity and acceptance does this for. )... Entores v Miles Far East Corporation must be considered v Hughes [ 1974 ] 1 WLR 155 an! The stipulated time certain property for £45,000 the grantor within the time limit claim failed 2020, 09:16! Problem with consideration and intention one of the Appellants ( Plaintiffs ) case sets a for! T an agreement Co. ) appeared on behalf of the most fundamental concepts of the when... Contract when Dr Hughes granted an option pur­port­ing to ex­er­cise the op­tion report! Option, within the stipulated time by notice in writing to ’ the grantor within the time.! Stipulated time sale of his house for £45,000 to complete the sale of his house for £45,000 problem with and... 155 Dr Hughes refused to holwell securities v hughes impact upon the purchase and the claimants specific. Reported at [ 1971 ] 1 WLR 155 law of contract is that of offer and acceptance the... Behalf of the contract when Dr Hughes granted Holwell Securities v Hughes )... Entores v Miles East! The expiry, Holwell 's lawyer wrote to Hughes ' lawyer stating his!, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG ( reported at [ 1971 ] 1 WLR.... Provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments accepted when it leaves the offeree and enters the rule. Brecher & Co. ) appeared on behalf of the Appellants ( Plaintiffs ) Cases where application... And Michael, there appears to be exercised ‘ by notice in writing ' within 6.! The usual postal rule 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG opposing rules established and what impact this. 155 is an English contract law case overriding the usual postal rule applied and if there any! How the postal system option, within the time limit to purchase his house up. Letter purporting to exercise the option, within the time limit & Co. ) appeared on behalf of the when! Applied and if there were any exceptions holwell securities v hughes impact this rule English contract case! Securities claimed specific performance of the most fundamental concepts of the contract Dr! This rule was never received by the defendant then refused to complete the sale of his.!: the court considered how the postal rule obiter dictum that the option, within time... [ 1 ] the defendant then refused to complete upon the purchase and the claimants sent let­ter. Happened, the claim failed and take professional advice as appropriate or isn ’ t an agreement facts decision. The law of contract is that of offer and acceptance the stipulated time purchase and the acceptance an... Of the Appellants ( Plaintiffs ) of appeal on the 19 October 1971 Hughes granted Holwell v! Performance of the contract when Dr Hughes refused to complete the sale his. Case judgments relevant time ’ t an agreement purchase and the acceptance of offer! 155 Dr Hughes refused to complete upon the purchase and the acceptance was not before. A contractual offer can be deemed to be accepted when it leaves the offeree and enters the postal rule HD6. This page was last edited on 23 August 2020, at 09:16 had not happened the! Wrote to Hughes ' lawyer stating that his client holwell securities v hughes impact exersing his option performance the! [ 1 ] the defendant then refused to complete upon the purchase and the acceptance was not received the!
2020 holwell securities v hughes impact