Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation: CA 1955

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. Application was now made for leave to serve notice of a writ out of the jurisdiction on the grounds that the action was brought to recover damages for breach of a contract made within the jurisdiction or by implication to be governed by English law. The Plaintiffs were an English company. The Defendants were an American corporation.
Held: The resultant contract was made in, and was actionable in, London.
The rule about instantaneous communications between the parties is different from the rule about the post. The contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror; and the contract is made at the place where the acceptance is received. 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.
Denning LJ said: ‘In a matter of this kind however it is very important the countries of the world should have the same rule. I find that most of the European countries have substantially the same rules as that I have stated’.
Denning, Birkett, Parker LJJ
[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
England and Wales
ConsideredCarlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co CA 7-Dec-1892
The defendants advertised ‘The Carbolic Smoke Ball,’ in the Pall Mall Gazette, saying ‘andpound;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 . .
Not SupportedNewcomb and Another v De Roos 5-Nov-1859
. .
CitedAdams v Lindsell KBD 5-Jun-1818
No Contract by Post until Acceptance Received
The defendant sent his offer of wool for sale to the plaintiff by post. The plaintiff’s acceptance was at first misdirected. Before receiving the reply the defendant had sold the wool elsewhere, but this was only after he would have received the . .

Cited by:
CitedBP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt 1976
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 . .
CitedFour Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie SC 19-Dec-2017
The claimant and her family were in a car crash while on holiday in Egypt. The claimant’s husband and his daughter died. The holiday had been booked in England and the car excursion booked in advance from England. The hotel operator was incorporated . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.183109