Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes
The postal rule does not apply where the offer requires actual communication of acceptance, or where it would produce manifest inconvenience or absurdity.
Facts
Dr Hughes granted Holwell Securities an option to buy his house and surgery premises, to be exercised by notice in writing to the intending vendor within six months. Within the six months, Holwell's solicitors posted a letter to Dr Hughes exercising the option, but the letter never arrived. A copy sent to Dr Hughes's solicitor was not notice to him personally. After the six months had expired, Holwell sued for specific performance, arguing that under the postal rule the option was exercised when the letter was posted.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the option had not been exercised. The postal rule does not apply where the terms of the offer, expressly or by implication, require that acceptance actually reach the offeror. The words notice in writing to the intending vendor required actual communication, so the notice took effect only when received. Lawton LJ added that the postal rule does not apply where it would lead to manifest inconvenience and absurdity.
Related cases on offer and acceptance
- Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681
- Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council [1990] 1 WLR 1195
- Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH [1983] 2 AC 34
- Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 401
- Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven & Co (1880) 5 CPD 344
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256
- Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D 463
- Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corp [1955] 2 QB 327
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
