Entores Ltd -v- Miles Far East Corporation; CA 1955

References: [1955] 2 All ER 394, [1955] 2 QB 327, [1955] EWCA Civ 3, [1955] 3 WLR 48, [1955] 1 Lloyds Rep 511, 99 Sol Jo 384
Links: Bailii
Coram: Denning, Birkett, Parker LJJ
The plaintiff traded from London, and telexed an offer to purchase cathodes to a company in Holland, who signified their acceptance by return, again by telex. Entores later wanted to sue the defendant, the parent company of the Dutch party. It was denied that a contract had come into existence within the UK jurisdiction.
Held: The resultant contract was made in, and was actionable in, London.
For instantaneous communications, such as by fax, there is acceptance at the place where the offeror receives the acceptance of the offer, though in such a case, Lord Denning said, ‘The contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror’.
An agreement made in one country and amended in another should not be regarded as having been made in the second country.
This case cites:

  • Considered – Carlill -v- Carbolic Smoke Ball Co CA ([1893] 1 QB 256, [1892] 4 All ER Rep 127, [1892] 62 LJ QB 257, [1892] 67 LT 837, [1892] 57 JP 325, [1892] 41 WR 210, [1892] 9 TLR 124, [1892] 4 R 176, lip, Hamlyn, Justis, Bailii, [1892] EWCA Civ 1)
    The defendants advertised ‘The Carbolic Smoke Ball,’ in the Pall Mall Gazette, saying ‘£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd -v- Hunt ([1976] 3 All ER 879, [1976] 1 WLR 788)
    The fact that the contract was governed by English law was the predominating factor to be borne in mind when deciding jurisdiction.
    The court should be careful before describing as non-disclosure as material not included in an affidavit in . .

Leave a Reply