 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Mistake
editI believe this summary is mistaken. The court did not conclude "There was a contract on September 5 when the plaintiffs posted their acceptance". It stated a more general proposition that the contract had been formed without specificity. It only decided a contract was formed. A As to the timing the report uses the words “in the course of post”. It was not until 1892 in Henthorn v Fraser that the court put a precise time on this. The final sentence of the judgment states: “Then as to the delay in notifying the acceptance, that arises entirely from the mistake of the defendants, and it therefore must be taken as against them, that the plaintiffs answer was received in course of post.” Alan Davidson 04:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have now corrected the article Alan Davidson 07:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Mistake Again
editI had previously corrected the error that this case established the postal accptance rule It did not. A previous version correctly stated: "This case in the first step towards establishing the postal acceptance rule (mailbox rule). It was not until 1892 in Henthorn v Fraser that the court determined the precise timing of the acceptance, that is the moment the letter of acceptance is posted. (See also Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 QB 327, CA)." I invite comments, but I will correct this in the future. Please read the case. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The case established the postal rule but not the specifics of it; they simply established that an acceptance, when sent through the post, was a valid acceptance during the entire 'trip' of the letter. This idea formed the basis of the postal rule (that an acceptance sent through the post was valid acceptance even if it did not arrive on time/immediately) - it was later cases that established the specific point at which 'acceptance' was deemed to come. Ironholds (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Another error is under the section "Judgment" where it states "Instead it must be considered that the offer were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post". That may be a correct statement of the postal acceptance rule, but not of the case. The merely stated that a cobtract was formed "in the course of post". The expression "established" is I belive misleading. More accurately this case is the first step in the formation of the rule. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, that is accurate; it is a direct quote from the court transcript. I don't have the direct transcript to hand where it is accessible by web, but this has a pretty good summing up. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- First, there is no "direct transcript". Your link is to the same as the original report as it appeared in the English Reports. Second, (putting aside the grammatical errors) the statement in Wikipedia: “Instead it must be considered that the offer were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post” presumably comes from the quote: “The defendants must be considered in law as making, during every instant of the time their letter was travelling, the same identical offer to the plaintiffs.” But that is just from the offeror to the offeree - of course the offer is made during every "instant" or "moment". The case says nothing specifically about the timing of the acceptance – other than (1) “the answer did come back in due course of post” (2) “contract is completed by the acceptance of it by the latter (offeree)” (3) “Then as to the delay in notifying the acceptance, that arises entirely from the mistake of the defendants, and it therefore must be taken as against them, that the plaintiffs' answer was received in course of post.” Indeed, it could be argued that the case is only authority for the proposition that the offeror must accept acceptance by mail where the offeror was at fault by (for example) misdirecting the offer – “the delay having been occasioned by the neglect of the defendants”. It needed subsequent cases to ensure the expansion of the rule to positions where there was no such neglect. I believe it is important to accurately report the case. Too many law students think that this establishes the rule as it stands today. It is merely the genesis, the first step. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- And the article says that it was only the first step as you suggested, as do most law textbooks (and as I was taught, my lecturers tried not to give the easy answer so we had to learn all the cases). If you want to change the wording to put greater emphasis on it as the first step rather than the current situation that is fine. Ironholds (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- First, there is no "direct transcript". Your link is to the same as the original report as it appeared in the English Reports. Second, (putting aside the grammatical errors) the statement in Wikipedia: “Instead it must be considered that the offer were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post” presumably comes from the quote: “The defendants must be considered in law as making, during every instant of the time their letter was travelling, the same identical offer to the plaintiffs.” But that is just from the offeror to the offeree - of course the offer is made during every "instant" or "moment". The case says nothing specifically about the timing of the acceptance – other than (1) “the answer did come back in due course of post” (2) “contract is completed by the acceptance of it by the latter (offeree)” (3) “Then as to the delay in notifying the acceptance, that arises entirely from the mistake of the defendants, and it therefore must be taken as against them, that the plaintiffs' answer was received in course of post.” Indeed, it could be argued that the case is only authority for the proposition that the offeror must accept acceptance by mail where the offeror was at fault by (for example) misdirecting the offer – “the delay having been occasioned by the neglect of the defendants”. It needed subsequent cases to ensure the expansion of the rule to positions where there was no such neglect. I believe it is important to accurately report the case. Too many law students think that this establishes the rule as it stands today. It is merely the genesis, the first step. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, that is accurate; it is a direct quote from the court transcript. I don't have the direct transcript to hand where it is accessible by web, but this has a pretty good summing up. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Another error is under the section "Judgment" where it states "Instead it must be considered that the offer were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment that the letter was in the post". That may be a correct statement of the postal acceptance rule, but not of the case. The merely stated that a cobtract was formed "in the course of post". The expression "established" is I belive misleading. More accurately this case is the first step in the formation of the rule. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)