• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Entores ltd V. Miles Far East Corperation [1955] 2 QB 327(CA)

Extracts from this document...


Case note ENTORES LTD V. MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION [1955] 2 QB 327(CA) Parties to the Case Miles Far East Corporation are an American corporation with agents all over the world, including a Dutch Company in Amsterdam. (Appellants) Entores Ltd are a company registered and resident in England, with an office in London. (Respondents) Procedural History There was a breach of contract by the appellant. In the county court the respondents ordered to serve notice of the writ in an action for damages for breach of contract on the ground that the contract was made in England and therefore fell within the terms of R.S.C.,ord. 11,r 1 (e),(i). Miles Far East Corporation appealed to the Court of Appeal. It was an interlocutory appeal for the discharge of the order dated Dec. 17 1954 which gave liberty to the plaintiffs to serve the notice of a writ. chaMaterial Facts The English Company received a telex offer from the Dutch company. Telex, like a telephone is the form of the instantaneous communication. Each Company had a teleprinter machine in its office; and each has a teletex number like a telephone number. For the moment one party type out the message, the other party ought to be receiving it on to the paper. ...read more.


Wrench (1840) 3 Beav. 334.] or revoked, [Watson v. Davies, ante.] and knowledge of the revocation has been communicated to the offeree. [Henthorn v. Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27.] Where an offer is capable of being accepted by post, the time of acceptance is generally the time at which the acceptance is posted. [Adams v. Lindsell (1818) 1 B. & Ald. 681.] This is so even though the posted acceptance never arrives at its destination. [Household Fire and Carriage Insurance Co. v. Grant (1879) 4 Ex. D. 216.] This rule does not apply to the revocation of an offer, which must be actually communicated to the offeree. [Henthorn v. Fraser [1892] 2 Ch. 27.] Furthermore, the rule may be negatived by express words. So where an option was required to be exercised "by notice" it was held that a notice meant something which came to the attention of the person to whom it was addressed, so that the "posting rule" did not apply. [Holwell Securities v. Hughes [1974] 1 W.L.R. 155.] The "posting rule" does not apply to instantaneous communications between the parties, e.g. telex, [Entores v. Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 Q.B. 327.] or, presumably, facsimile transmission. ...read more.


They apply to contracts by post as well as instantaneous communications. Even thought, in the United States of America the instantaneous communication are treated as postal communications there is no difference between English and American Law: see American restatement S.64, in the case of the contract of the telephone, it has been held in America that the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is spoken, therefore dealing with such a contract the same principal as that applicable in the case of a letter to telegram. Lord Parker made a number of general comments in his judgment which could be seen as obiter dictum: 'The requirement as to actual notification of the acceptance is for the benefit of the offeror, he may waive it and agree to substitution for that requirement of some other conduct by the acceptor. He may do so expressly, as in the advertisement cases, by intimating that he is content with the performance of a condition. Again, he may do so impliedly by indicating a contemplated method of acceptance, for example, by postal telegram. In such a case he does not expressly dispense with actual notification, but he is held to have done so impliedly on grounds of expediency'. 1 1B &Ald.681 2)1 H.L.C 381 3 (1872)L.R.7Ch.587 4 (1871)L.R.6Exch.108 5 (1879)4Ex.D.216 6 (1892)2Ch.27,32; 8 T.L.B. 459 7 (1870)L.R. 6Exch. 7. 8 (1888)20 Q.B.D. 640 9 (1904)1Ch.305; 20T.L.R. 125 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Contract section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Contract essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "The requirement of consideration is an unnecessary complication in the formation of contracts."

    4 star(s)

    Again, this is rebutted by Lord Denning who claims that the reliance need not necessary be to a party's detriment as in the case of W J Alan & Co v El Nasr [1972] while an Australian case, Legone v Hately established that at least potential detriment must be shown.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance

    3 star(s)

    * And it is different from asking mere information. It depends on the intention, objectively ascertained Stevenson v McLean (1880) On Saturday, the defendant offered to sell iron to the plaintiff at 40 shillings a ton, open until Monday. On Monday at 10am, the plaintiff sent a telegram asking if he could have credit terms.

  1. Ian, an investment broker, wasapproached by Victor who asked him whether he should invest ...

    but there may not be a bar in cases of fraudulent. Furthermore Victor's rights to rescind is not subject to any of the bar such as lapse of time, affirmation, intervention of 3rd party rights and restitution. Therefore Victor can rescind the contract.

  2. Offer and Acceptance

    His claim that it was a counter offer failed as it was believed that it was not a rejection of the offer, merely an enquiry about it, and the offer was still open to acceptance. A final case that holds the principle that a second offer will revoke the first


    This depends upon the nature and effect of the breach. The term itself is of such a kind that some breaches of it may have only a slight effect whereas other breaches might render the contract incapable of performance. The leading case recognising the existence of the innominate term is Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd.

  2. Undue influence in the case of Barclays Bank v. O''Brian [1994] Lord Browne-Wilkinson was ...

    Since Camilla is doing more than she had originally agreed to do (she is providing decorative pots), it seems that there will be consideration for Ildar's promise of more money (Hartley v. Ponsonby(1857)). But even though Camilla has given consideration for Ildar's promise, Ildar may avoid paying if the promise was obtained by economic duress.


    Some breaches will be regarded as material, so serious they completely destroy it. Some will be not so serious so consequences are less severe, i.e. late delivery of goods, may or may not be material breach of contract. The courts will look and draw up own conclusions and will decide the proper remedy for award.

  2. The theory of tenure requires that all land that is held for any estate ...

    Further a lease has two essentials namely exclusive possession and certainty of duration. LEASE AS CONTRACT A lease is a contract for the exclusive possession and profit of land for some determinant period.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work