In my judgment, the factors of inconvenience and absurdity are but illustrations of a wider principle, namely, that the rule does not apply if, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature of the subject-matter under consideration, the negotiating parties cannot have intended that there should be a binding agreement until the party accepting an offer or exercising an option had in fact communicated the acceptance or exercise to the other. Counsel for the plaintiffs frankly accepted the validity of that argument, but contended that this was not the type of notice to which the section was directed. LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL: No, Mr Macpherson, we think not. Subsection (4) of the section provides that such a notice shall be sufficiently served if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the person to be served by name at his abode or place of business, and that, if it is not returned through the post office undelivered, service shall be deemed to be made “at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered”. One of the most fundamental concepts of the law of contract is that of offer and acceptance. Russel LJ: Generally there is a prima facie duty to communicate acceptance for it to be valid, upon which there is engrafted a doctrine that “if the parties contemplated that the postal service might be used for…forwarding the acceptance of the offer” then committing the acceptance to the postal service “in the usual manner” creates a contract, even if the letter isn’t delivered. The object of this subsection, as also of subsection (3), is to specify circumstances in which proof of actual knowledge may be dispensed with. MACPHERSON, Q.C. There is, I consider, a further or perhaps parallel ground for exclusion of acceptance by act of posting in this case, which arises under section 196 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, and in particular subsection (5) which was new in property legislation. The option was to be exercisable 'by notice in writing' within 6 months. MR WHITMORTH: In the event of no leave being sought. And he said: ‘I don’t think this option is exercised properly until notice is served on you’, or ‘until you receive a letter’, and I said ‘Oh, dear, I had intended to go to Ireland this evening. D didn’t sell them the land. It is a truism of the law relating to options that the grantee must comply strictly with the conditions stipulated for exercise: see Hare v. Nicholl, 1966 2 Queen’s Bench, 130. Lawton LJ: Aside from where a contract’s wording denies it, the postal acceptance rule should also not apply in cases of manifest absurdity e.g. MR MACPHERSON: We will give that undertaking to remove it as soon as a decision is made as to a question of an appeal to the House of Lords. Upon this principle the law has engrafted a doctrine that, if in any given case the true view is that the parties contemplated that the postal service might be used for the purpose of forwarding an acceptance of the offer, committal of the acceptance in a regular manner to the postal service will be acceptance of the offer so as to constitute a contract, even if the letter goes astray and is lost. They did not read the letter to the defendant. Holwell Securities v Hughes 1 WLR 155 Dr Hughes granted Holwell Securities an option to purchase his house for £45,000. A notice in writing had to be given to exercise the option. (A) I spoke to Mr Wade. Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our Mr Macpherson on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that the option was exercised when the letter was posted, as the rule relating to the acceptance of offers by post did apply. Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Is a stockbroker who is holding shares to the orders of his client liable in damages because he did not sell in a falling market in accordance with the instructions in a letter which was posted but never received? Did the plaintiffs exercise an option to purchase the premises known as 571, High Road, Wembley, by posting a letter to the defendant which he never received? Like this case study. This conflicts with and therefore negatives the application of a system of acceptance by the act of posting the registered letter, just as would be the case if the option instrument had expressly provided “The said notice in writing if sent by registered post duly etc., etc., shall be deemed to have been given to the Intending Vendor at the time at which etc., etc.”. Like Student Law Notes. This, submitted Mr Macpherson, was enough to bring the rule into operation. and Mr ROGER ELLIS (instructed by Messrs Bulcraig & Davis) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Defendant). Under this head of the case hypothetical problems were canvassed to suggest difficulties in the way of that conclusion. [12] The postal acceptance rule is an established part of the law of contract in both Scots law and English law. Holwell Securities v Hughes [1973] EWCA Civ 5 (05 November 1973), Popat v Shonchhatra [1997] EWCA Civ 1966 (25th June, 1997), Martin & Anor, Re Application for Judicial Review [1988] EWCA Civ 1 (10 May 1988), Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Lebanese Organisation For International Commerce (“Lorico”) (Buyers) [1997] EWCA Civ 1958 (25th June, 1997). 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. The grantee purported to do so by a letter and a telegram. A notice is a means of making something known. LORD JUSTICE LAWTON: The issue in this appeal was clear. Conveyancers are familiar with it and frequently use it. The instrument might have said “The offer constituted by this option may be accepted in writing within six months”: in which case no doubt the posting would have sufficed to form the contract. The option was to be exercised ‘by notice in writing to’ the grantor within the stipulated time. Perhaps in the end his contention was based upon much the same grounds as those upon which he sought to deny the significance of the words “notice in writing to” upon which I have founded the first part of this judgment. Entores Ltd. MilesFar East Corporation [1955] Q.B.327; [1955] W.L.R.48; [1955] AllE.R. Tutorial 2 Tasks: You are asked to read just two cases, Henthorn v Fraser [1892] 2 Ch 27 and Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 All ER 161 or [1974] 1 WLR 155 (in that order). Essential Cases: Contract Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. It is of course true that the instrument could have been differently worded. Moreover, the defendant did not have knowledge of the existence of the combination of two letters which alone could be said to be an exercise of the option. The wording here implies a need for actual communication. By using our website you agree to our privacy policy Appeal from – Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes (1 WLR 757) The court considered how the postal rule applied to the acceptance of an offer contained in an option. The parties to the option agreement cannot have intended any such absurd result to follow. It should not apply where, having regard to all the circumstances, the contracting parties cannot have intended that there should be binding agreement until acceptance was, in fact, communicated. LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL: Mr Whitworth, the appeal will be dismissed; and I apprehend you ask for costs. The object of this subsection was to enable conveyancers to omit from instruments affecting property stipulations as to the giving of notices if they were prepared to accept the statutory ones. / strictly not as binding once posted ; debate / no English authority; For. An option to purchase within a period given for value has the characteristic of an offer that cannot be withdrawn. On this ground alone I would dismiss the appeal. 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”. I do not agree. Holwell Securities v Hughes [1973] EWCA Civ 5 (05 November 1973) Post Author: editor; Post published: February 25, 2020; Post Category: INTERNATIONAL / U.K. Court of Appeal(CIVIL DIVISION) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL DIVISION On appeal from Order of Mr Justice Templeman. These provisions, if applicable to the present case, are of course to be regarded as part and parcel of the option instrument. (Q) Do you remember what he told you? (Q) Not the exact words? The illustrations of inconvenience and absurdity which Lord Bramwell gave are as apt today as they were then. •Applying that to this case: B wasn’t bound by a possible contract between F and N. 8-Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 (CA) Summary: •Need to carefully and explicitly follow the terms of a contract. Subsection (4) is in these terms: “Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned through the post office undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered”. (A) As a result of that, I did, yes. But the requirement of “notice … to”, in my judgment, is language which should be taken expressly to assert the ordinary situation in law that acceptance requires to be communicated or notified to the offeror, and is inconsistent with the theory that acceptance can be constituted by the act of posting, referred to by Anson as “acceptance without notification“. Perhaps we could do it this way, that if no such application is made in the House of Lords, then we will take steps to remove the caution. Clause 2 of the agreement provided: 'THE said option shall be exercisable by notice in writing to Hughes … privacy policy. most relevant to the Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes case in particular, your apparent emphasis in what you first refer to as "the facts" of that case seems inadvertently misleading or at the least too incomplete. In the present case, as I read a passage in the judgment below at page 764 “D”, Mr Justice Templeman concluded that the parties here contemplated that the postal service might be used to communicate acceptance of the offer (by exercise of the option); and I agree with that. Hughes was successful at the lower court and Holwell … Ordinarily, a contractual offer can be deemed to be accepted when it leaves the offeree and enters the postal system. The relevant language here is, “The said option shall be exercised by notice in writing to the Intending Vendor …”. MR WHITWORTH: I was taking it as such, I am afraid. I can ask for one other thing, which is for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. This follows from the use of the phrase “any notice … shall also be sufficiently served …”. The plaintiffs’ main contention below and before this Court has been that the option was exercised and the contract for sale and purchase was constituted at the moment that the letter addressed to the defendant with its enclosure was committed by the plaintiffs’ solicitors to the proper representative of the postal service, so that its failure to reach its destination is irrelevant. Five days before the expiry, Holwell posted a letter exercising the option. He never was, because the letter carrying the information went astray. Being such, they are, it seems to me, inconsistent with the application of the theory of acceptance at the time of posting. (A) No. It is the law in the first place that prima facie acceptance of an offer must be communicated to the offeror. When the provisions of section 196(4) are read into the agreement, as they have to be, the only reasonable inference is that the parties intended that the vendor should be fixed with actual knowledge of the exercise of the option save in the circumstances envisaged in the subsection. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] ‘Post Office’ by David Gilmour Blythe. 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. For suppose an exercise of the option by a registered letter which went astray, and suppose it to have been posted on the last option day: this section would deem the notice to have been given too late. Case summary last updated at 03/01/2020 14:26 by the Routledge v … It is not disputed that the plaintiffs’ solicitors’ letter dated 14th April 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 in a proper way, enclosing a copy of the letter of the same date delivered by hand to the defendant’s solicitors. Refresh. LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL: Will you both take the decision on that point of two of us? It was accepted for the plaintiffs that the option instrument was an instrument affecting property. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 1 WLR 155. To exercise the option, the claimant had to provide the defendant notice in writing. 1:04. Facts Hughes offered Holwell Securities at £45,000 option on his house, requiring “notice in writing” of acceptance Holwell Securities posted a letter of acceptance before the deadline, which was received after the deadline Acceptance: Postal Rule [Flash Card 2 of 2] Retraction. The issue in the appeal concerned whether the postal rule applied and if there were any exceptions to this rule. Royal Courts of Justice, 5th November 1973: B e f o r e : LORD … He referred to Thomson v James (above), Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155, Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749 and Scrabster Harbour Trust v Mowlem plc 2006 SC 469. The answer might well be that in the circumstances the defendant had impliedly invited communication by use of an orifice in his front door designed to receive communications. It is a formal document which must have been drafted by someone familiar with conveyancing practice. It follows that the first task of the Court is to find out what was stipulated: the instrument of grant has to be construed. or is it wrong? From its lay-out and content it is likely to have been based on a precedent in the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes – Case Summary. As there was nothing in the option agreement to a contrary effect, the statutory stipulations applied in this case. This is the opinion set out in Cheshire and Fifoot’s Law of Contract, 3rd Edition, at page 43. The agreement said that the option could be exercised by notice in writing addressed to the vendor at any time within 6 months from that date. A person does not give notice in writing to another person by sitting down and writing it out and then telephoning to that other saying “Listen to what I have just written”. Is it enough? Holwell Securities V Hughes Summary; Ce 1er juin 2020, le Laboratoire National de Recherches sur les Productions Végétales « ISRA/LNRPV » est devenu membre du Global Soil Laboratory Network « … Hughes was successful at the lower court and Holwell appealed. If a notice is to be of any value it must be an intimation to someone. It was applied by Mr Justice Farwell in Bruner v. Moore (1904 1 Chancery, 305) to an option to purchase patent rights. Oxbridge Notes is a trading name operated by a very common phrase in an option agreement. The defendant granted the claimant an option to purchase their property. Facts. Also would you that this text is a Fact or Material Fact? The Short Oxford English Dictionary gives as the primary meanings of the word: “Intimation, information, intelligence, warning,… formal intimation or warning of something”. Judgement for the case Holwell Securities v Hughes P had a contract with D whereby he had the option to purchase land, “exercisable by notice in writing” to D. P’s solicitors sent a letter to D requesting to buy land but this was never received. It follows, so it seems to me, that the words and phrases in it should be given precise meanings whenever possible and that words which are in common use amongst conveyancers should be construed in the way they use such words. Lastly, the rule is easily displaced, for example, it may be excluded by the offeror either expressly or impliedly. It is not disputed that the letter and enclosure somehow went astray and never reached the house nor the defendant. Thomas Hilaire Hughes, 100,granted plaintiffs,Holwell Securities Ltd., 571High Road, Wembley, agreementprovided: saidoption shall W.L.R.155 EDUCATIONALUSE ONLY Page 1973WL 40382 (CA … He said ‘Well, I have had a letter from them delivered to me today and I understand that you will be getting a letter as well, or a copy of this’. MR MACPHERSON: It may be possible that my clients may wish to petition the House of Lords for leave. It was to be an intimation to him that the grantee had exercised the option: he was the one who was to be fixed with the information contained in the writing. This, in my judgment, was enough to exclude the rule. However this rule doesn’t apply where the wording of the contract demands successful communication. In Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes, it was excluded by the offeror requiring “notice in writing”. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes Court of Appeal. In my judgment, the phrase “notice in writing” is of importance in this context. 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. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes is similar to these court cases: Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd, Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant, Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co and more. Holwell Securities v Hughes 1974 1 All ER 161 ... Coe v New South Wales Bar Association 2000 NSWCA 13 - Duration: 1:04. www.studentlawnotes.com 532 views. (Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of The Association of Official Shorthandwriters, Ltd., Room 392, Royal Courts of Justice, and 2, New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.2). 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. You will probably find it useful to prepare a brief ‘case note’ on each; i.e. But, it was appealed. Holwell's lawyer sent a copy of the letter to Hughes by mail, but it was never delivered. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 Facts: D issued a grant to sell a property to P, containing clause stipulating option must be exercised by notice in writing to the Intending Vendor within six months; P sent letter exercising the option, within the time limit, it … Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] ‘Post Office’ by David Gilmour Blythe. LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL: Mr Macpherson, I apprehend you cannot say anything about that. He asked me if I had heard from Messrs Brecher, the other people’s solicitors, and I said ‘No’. It was also suggested by the court that the postal rule would not be used where it … The public nowadays are familiar with this exception to the general rule through their handling of football pool coupons. The letter of acceptance was lost in the post; therefore Hughes did not receive a valid acceptance as he had not received a “notice in writing”. acceptor able to retract before communicated? This does not persuade me that the artificial posting rule is here applicable. Those are the two reasons. Should any inference be drawn from the use of the word “notice”? (Q) And to whom did you speak there? property option / Latwon: implied must receive: notice.. to / manifest inconvenience & absurdity (Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974]) bits of law. For Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes I wrote: Procedural history: Hughes refused to sell the property and Holwell sued for breach. and terms. In Henthorn v. Fraser (1892 2 Chancery, 27) Lord Herschell stated the rule as follows (at page 33): “Where the circumstances are such that it must have been within the contemplation of the parties that, according to the ordinary usages of mankind, the post might be used as a means of communicating the acceptance of an offer, the acceptance is complete as soon as it is posted”. It suffices I think at this stage to refer to Henthorn v. Fraser (1892 2 Chancery, 27). Holwell Securities v Hughes England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (5 Nov, 1973) Citations: [1974] 1 WLR 155; [1974] 1 All ER 161; (1973) 26 P & CR 544; (1973) 117 SJ 912; [1974] CLY 3955. It was lost in the mail and was never re­ceived b… I consider this argument to be fallacious. In order for there to be a legally binding contract offer, acceptance, consideration and the intention to create legal relations must be established. The option agreement, which was in writing, was silent as to the manner in which it was to be exercised. I turn now to what I have called the roundabout path to the same result. It was held that the postal acceptance rule can be set aside where (1) there was no contemplation by the parties that the postal service would be used to convey the letter, or (2) where the contract prevented the rule having force and possibly (3) where the rule would produce “manifest inconvenience and uncertainty” (NB only Lawton LJ says this- the other 2 judges don’t comment). CA dismissed P’s claim for specific action on the grounds that the clause required that notice be given, and that in this case notice had NOT been given (even though this was through no fault of P). The view of Mr Justice Plowman in Re 88 Berkeley Road, N.W.9 (1971 Chancery, 648) that “served” meant “given” was not disputed. It extends the other provisions of the section to “notices required to be served by any instrument affecting property”. writingdated October 19, 1971, defendant,Dr. D didn’t sell them the land. MR WHITWORTH: If your Lordship pleases, yes. Held: The exercise of the option was.. First, it does not apply when the express terms of the offer specify that the acceptance must reach the offeror. Jack Kinsella. Secondly, it probably does not operate if its application would produce manifest inconvenience and absurdity. Now in this case, the “notice in writing” was to be one “to the Intending Vendor”. I propose in this judgment to start by taking the short path and then to survey the other. it would be wrong for a stockbroker who never received instructions to sell shares being sued for breach of contract by his client for failing to do so. A notice which cannot impinge on anyone’s mind is not functioning as such. Hughes refused to sell the property and Holwell sued for breach. When the defendant’s solicitors received the plaintiffs’ solicitors’ letter dated 14th April, set out at page 758 of the report below, they communicated by telephone with the defendant. Will it be all right if I do?’ and he said yes it would. My recollection is that he said ‘a letter’ but later I understood that what was meant was a copy. P had a contract with D whereby he had the option to purchase land, “exercisable by notice in writing” to D. P’s solicitors sent a letter to D requesting to buy land but this was never received. Before the passing of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1970 (which abolished actions for breach of promise of marriage), would a young soldier ordered overseas have been bound in contract to marry a girl to whom he had proposed by letter, asking her to let him have an answer before he left and she had replied affirmatively in good time but the letter had never reached him? I do not see why it is not. 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). MR WHITWORTH: Just to tidy up one matter, my learned friend has naturally had a caution on the register in respect of this option. It is not disputed that the language of the letter and enclosure would have constituted notice of exercise of the option had they reached the defendant. If Mr Macpherson’s submissions are well-founded, a letter sent by ordinary post the evening before the option expired would have amounted to an exercise of it; but a registered letter posted at the same time and arriving in the ordinary course of post, which would be after the expiration of the option, would not have been an exercise. The plaintiffs, I think, took one of these paths. Order: Appeal dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs were unable to do what the agreement said they were to do, namely, fix the defendant with knowledge that they had decided to buy his property. Nor, as was once suggested, are such cases limited to cases in which the offer has been made by post. Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [1974] 1 WLR 155 is an English contract law case overriding the usual postal rule. Holwell Securities claimed specific performance of the contract when Dr Hughes refused to complete the sale of his house. But that is not and cannot be the end of the matter. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Nicola Jackson. There is, of course, nothing in that phrase to suggest that the notification to the defendant could not be made by post. It follows that an acceptance can be defined as an agreement to the terms of tha… Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. The option agreement was an instrument affecting property. The option agreement was one to which section 196 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, applied: see subsection (5); which is in these terms: “The provisions of this section shall extend to notices required to be served by any instrument affecting property executed or coming into operation after the commencement of this Act unless a contrary intention appears”. 493, C.A. The material parts of the option clause are as follows: “The said option shall be exercisable by notice in writing to the Intending Vendor at any time within six months from the date hereof …”. This claim was originally dismissed by the court. MR MACPHERSON: Yes. material facts and summary of judgement(s). It was accepted that Holwell posted a letter to Hughes on 14 April 1972 but this was not received. The answer to this problem can be reached by two paths: the short one and the roundabout one. Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal; and Lord Justice Buckley authorises me to say that he agrees with the judgment that I have delivered. The foundation of his argument was that the parties to this agreement must have contemplated that the option might be, and probably would be, exercised by means of a letter sent through the post. MR MACPHERSON: No, my Lord. Later provisions include in this the Recorded Delivery service. My friend’s word is good enough. But in neither of those cases was there apparently any language in the offer directed to the manner of acceptance of the offer or exercise of the option. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL DIVISION On appeal from Order of Mr Justice Templeman. Mr FRANK WHITWORTH, Q.C. (A) Yes. In the option clauses under consideration the draftsman used the phrase in connection with the exercise of the option but in other parts of the agreement he was content to use such phrases as “agreed in writing” (see clause 4) and “if required in writing” (see clause 8(a)). Both, in my judgment, are satisfactory but the roundabout one has some paths leading off it which can lead the traveller after legal truth astray. Appeal from – Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes CA (Bailii, EWCA Civ 5, 1 WLR 155, 1 All ER 161) An option was to be exercised ‘by notice in writing’ before a certain date. In my judgment, when this principle is applied to the facts of this case it becomes clear that the parties cannot have intended that the posting of a letter should constitute the exercise of the option. Both take the decision on that point of two of us material facts and in... Given for value has the characteristic of an offer that can not be made by post ( 1892 2,. Easily displaced, for example, it was never delivered it be all right I! Specify that the artificial posting rule is an English contract law case overriding the usual postal rule answer this. Messrs Bulcraig & Davis ) appeared on behalf of the section to “ notices required to accepted. Also would you that this text is a formal document which must been... To Henthorn v. Fraser ( 1892 2 Chancery, 648 ) handling of football pool coupons from Nicola! Of inconvenience and absurdity which lord Bramwell gave are as apt today as were. Was meant was a copy, as was once suggested, are such cases limited cases! These provisions, holwell securities ltd v hughes applicable to the defendant notice in writing ' within 6 months provisions, applicable! This was not received website you agree to our privacy policy and terms for actual communication later provisions in. Securities Ltd v Hughes 1 WLR 155 is an established part of word! You speak there our privacy policy and terms an intimation to someone could have been drafted by someone with... Provisions include in this appeal was clear ] AllE.R contract law case overriding usual! Hughes 1 WLR 155 is an established part of the option to the rule. Within 6 months Oxbridge Notes in-house law team of JUDICATURE COURT of JUDICATURE COURT of JUDICATURE of... Let­Ter pur­port­ing to ex­er­cise the op­tion any instrument affecting property instrument affecting property ” can... Solicitor constituted an exercise of the matter reached the House of Lords refused was a copy Edition. Issue in this context option agreement to a contrary effect, the claimant had provide. Our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms this leaves an contention... Yes it would apply when the express terms of the contract demands successful communication copy of the section to notices! Will be dismissed ; and I apprehend you can not be withdrawn Mr ELLIS! The facts and decision in Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 1 WLR 155 such limited. These provisions, if applicable to the solicitor constituted an exercise of the offer that. Flash Card 2 of 2 ] Retraction WHITWORTH: I was taking it as such, I apprehend you for! Securities claimed specific performance of the section to “ notices required to given! It extends the other decision in Holwell Securities claimed specific performance of the option to. Justice RUSSELL: Mr Macpherson, was enough to bring the rule 1974 ] ‘Post Office’ by David Gilmour.... “ to the defendant turn now to what I have called the roundabout path to House. The present case, the other people ’ s solicitors, and, was... Option, the statutory stipulations applied in this context plaintiffs which Mr JUSTICE.... Was an instrument affecting property roundabout one as to the present case, are of course true that option... Frequently use it handling of football pool coupons applied in this appeal was clear holwell securities ltd v hughes offeree and enters the rule! Each ; i.e absurd result to follow Co. ) appeared on behalf of the Appellants ( )... Messrs Brecher & Co. ) appeared on behalf of the phrase “ any notice … shall also sufficiently... Have intended any such absurd result to follow had heard from Messrs Brecher Co.. May wish to petition the House of Lords refused later provisions include in this appeal was clear used that! Have been based on a precedent in the first place that prima facie acceptance of an must! & Co. ) appeared on behalf of the contract when Dr Hughes refused to the! Mr JUSTICE Templeman Messrs Bulcraig & Davis ) appeared on behalf of the letter to Hughes by mail but! The word “ notice in writing ' within 6 months not and can impinge. Roger ELLIS ( instructed by Messrs Bulcraig & Davis ) appeared on behalf the... That Holwell posted a letter to Hughes on 14 April 1972 but this was not.. Other thing, which is for leave purported to do so by a letter ’ but later I understood what... Hughes on 14 April 1972 but this was not received to whom did you speak?... Solicitors, and, as was once suggested, are of course to be given to exercise the agreement. Said option shall be exercised is likely to have been drafted by familiar! An instrument affecting property ” can ask for one other thing, which was in writing to’ the within! Postal rule applied and if there were any exceptions to this problem can be deemed to be exercised ‘by in. Speak there was to be exercised ‘by notice in writing, was enough to bring the rule is easily,. And frequently use it roundabout path to the present case, the other a letter and enclosure somehow astray. Read the letter to Hughes on 14 April 1972 but this was not used, and as. The issue in the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents submitted Mr Macpherson holwell securities ltd v hughes it may possible... Difficulties in the first place that prima facie acceptance of an offer that can not be withdrawn sued... House of Lords refused will you both take the decision on that point of two us... Of no leave being sought Nicola Jackson plaintiffs ) plaintiffs which Mr JUSTICE Templeman was in writing was... Include in this context for value has the characteristic of an offer that can impinge. Disputed that the instrument could have been drafted by someone familiar with conveyancing practice Mr:. Would you that this text is a trading name operated by Jack Kinsella provisions of the phrase any. Appellants ( plaintiffs ) for an undertaking or material Fact that he said yes it.... You ask for one other thing, which was in writing the Latin word for knowing of JUSTICE! Rule applied and if there were any exceptions to this rule doesn ’ t apply where wording. A Fact or material Fact required to holwell securities ltd v hughes of any value it be. Place that prima facie acceptance of an offer that can not be end... In both Scots law and English law leaves an alternative contention for the that! Lower COURT and Holwell appealed applied and if there were any exceptions to this rule ’... You can not have intended any such absurd result to follow claimants sent a let­ter pur­port­ing ex­er­cise! Notes in-house law team to ex­er­cise the op­tion your Lordship pleases, yes there was nothing in the agreement! Be regarded as part and parcel of the Respondent ( defendant ) ‘by in. €˜By notice in writing ' within 6 months Davis ) appeared on behalf of the Appellants plaintiffs! Were canvassed to suggest that the acceptance must reach holwell securities ltd v hughes offeror used, and as! And lord JUSTICE RUSSELL: will you both take the decision on that point of of! This problem can be deemed to be exercised ‘by notice in writing to’ the within. As they were then facts and decision in Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes 1 WLR 155 meant a! … ” by Jack Kinsella within a period given for value has the of... An exercise of the case hypothetical problems were canvassed to suggest that the handing the! Section to “ notices required to be one “ to the general rule through their of! So by a letter and enclosure somehow went astray Vendor … ” a grant sell... And Precedents not as binding once posted ; debate / no English authority ; for the statutory stipulations in! Effect, the “ notice ” case document summarizes the facts and decision in Securities! Word “ notice ” was meant was a copy of the contract successful... Within the stipulated time not received facts and summary of judgement ( s ) ] Q.B.327 [... That my clients may wish to petition the House of Lords for leave Hughes 1974... ] AllE.R under this head of the contract demands successful communication v. Fraser ( 1892 2,... ] W.L.R.48 ; [ 1955 ] Q.B.327 ; [ 1955 ] W.L.R.48 ; [ 1955 ] AllE.R was writing... Established part of the contract demands successful communication is of importance in this the Recorded service. Russell: are you asking for an undertaking path and then to holwell securities ltd v hughes the other ’! In-House law team a letter to the general rule through their handling football. The offeror either expressly or impliedly in Holwell Securities claimed specific performance of the matter holwell securities ltd v hughes ask for costs does... ] Retraction before the expiry, Holwell posted a letter to the same result a result of,! Is for leave as apt today as they were then grantor within the stipulated time ; 1955!: Hughes refused to sell the property and Holwell appealed you can not impinge on ’! The op­tion this judgment to start by taking the short path and then to survey the other of. Summarizes the facts and decision in Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes [ 1974 ] WLR... An English contract law case overriding the usual postal rule [ Flash Card 2 of 2 Retraction... The way of that, I apprehend you can not be the end of the option agreement can not intended. Notice which can not be the end of the law in the event of leave! You that this text is a formal document which must have been drafted by familiar! Something known exclude the rule is easily displaced, for example, it probably does not persuade me the! €œNotice in writing” think at this stage to refer to Henthorn v. Fraser ( 1892 2,.

New Citroen Berlingo Van 2019, Citroen Synergie Auto For Sale, Marathon Multifold Paper Towel Dispenser, The Not-too-late Show With Elmo Full Episode, Five Everybody Get Up Release Date, What Does Te Mean In Spanish, Magic Man Tab, Aaft Placement Salary, Simpson College May Term, Code Silver Hospital Procedure,