The defendants offered goods for sale to the plaintiffs by letter on October 1st, which the plaintiffs received on October 11th and accepted by telegram the same day. On October 8th, the defendants posted a letter withdrawing the offer, which the plaintiffs received on October 20th. The plaintiffs argued this constituted a breach of contract and sued for damages. The court held that a binding agreement was formed on October 11th when the plaintiffs accepted the offer, so the defendants' attempted withdrawal on October 8th was ineffective. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to damages.
The defendants offered goods for sale to the plaintiffs by letter on October 1st, which the plaintiffs received on October 11th and accepted by telegram the same day. On October 8th, the defendants posted a letter withdrawing the offer, which the plaintiffs received on October 20th. The plaintiffs argued this constituted a breach of contract and sued for damages. The court held that a binding agreement was formed on October 11th when the plaintiffs accepted the offer, so the defendants' attempted withdrawal on October 8th was ineffective. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to damages.
The defendants offered goods for sale to the plaintiffs by letter on October 1st, which the plaintiffs received on October 11th and accepted by telegram the same day. On October 8th, the defendants posted a letter withdrawing the offer, which the plaintiffs received on October 20th. The plaintiffs argued this constituted a breach of contract and sued for damages. The court held that a binding agreement was formed on October 11th when the plaintiffs accepted the offer, so the defendants' attempted withdrawal on October 8th was ineffective. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to damages.
Facts: The defendants offered good for sale to the defendants
by letter on 1st October which was received on 11th October and accepted by telegram the same day and sent a response on the 15th . On 8th October, the defendant posted a letter withdrawing the offer which reached the plaintiff on the 20th. The plaintiff contended that this constituted breach of contract and launch an action for the recovery of damages.
Issue: Whether the defendants had validly revoked the offer
through the letter dated 8th October
Held: The withdrawal was inoperative as a binding agreement
had been created thus the plaintiff was entitled to damages
Reason: A contract had been created on the 11th when the
plaintiffs accepted the offer dated 1st . A revocation is effective when it is communicated to the offeree before acceptance has been assented. Acceptance by post is effective when the acceptance letter is posted.