Tinn v Hoffman & Co. [1873]
Facts of the case The letter was written by the defendant to the plaintiff on 24th November 1871. It stated ‘we offer you 800 tons with 200 tons delivered per month of March, April May and June 1872 at the price of 69s per ton. Waiting your reply by return.’ The plaintiff failed to reply but on 27th November stated that the price is too high. The plaintiff stated that if the quantity of 1200 tons ordered and delivered (with 200 tons per month for the first six months next year,) will the defendant lower the price? The plaintiff asking for a reply from the defendant. On 28th November 1871, the defendant replied that he willing to make an offer for further 400 tons with 200 tons on January and another 200 tons being delivered on February with the same price as quoted originally on 24th November 1871. The defendant wanted a reply whether to accept the offer or not. On the same day, without receiving and reading the reply from the defendant, the plaintiff wrote a letter where it stated that the defendant can enter the 800s tons on the terms and conditions named in the defendant favour on the 24th November and believing that the defendant will enter the 400s ton making 1200 tons at the price of 68s per ton. The defendant gave the plaintiff one more chance to buy the pig irons at 69s per ton. The plaintiff replied later than was required. The defendant refused to sell him any iron since the market price for iron had risen. Held It was held that there was no binding contract. The offer on 24th November was rejected because the plaintiff failed to reply by return or because the plaintiff letter on 27th November was a rejection. The letter by the defendant on 28th November made a new offer of 1200 tons and it did not revive the old offer of 800 tons. It was not open for the plaintiff to accept 800 tons. In obiter, Keating, Brett and Blackburn JJ provided that even if the plaintiff’s letter at 28th November had been in the same terms as the defendant’s letter of the same day there would still be no contract. This is because per Blackburn J, the promise or offer being made on each side in ignorance of the offer on the other side neither of them can be construed as an acceptance of the other. Conclusion A counter offer constitutes a rejection to the original offer.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|