An offer was made in writing by the Defendant to sell two parcels of real property on alternative bases, where one of the alternatives was accepted both orally and by letter by the Plaintiff. He suggested two bases upon which the 1677 Act operated to make the Plaintiff’s apparent acceptance of the offer not binding: the reply letter did not define which alternative was being accepted and secondly that the letter from the Defendant did not sufficiently set out the terms of the agreement.
Held: The first point failed under construction of the letters, and the second was rejected in applying Hussey.
Citations:
[1901] Ch 543
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Hussey v Horne-Payne HL 1879
An exchange of letters which together constituted a binding agreement would satisfy the requirements of Section 4 as it applied to contracts for the sale of land.
Lord Selborne said: ‘The observation has often been made, that a contract . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA ChD 7-Apr-2006
The parties were in dispute. The now respondent threatened winding up. The appellant had someone in his company send an email requesting an adjournment and apparently giving a personal guarantee to a certain amount. The application was adjourned, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241707
