Instantaneous/Electronic Communications
Entores v Miles Far East Corporations (1955)
In this case, the plaintiff is based in London during a series of negotiations by telex.
(International message transfer service).
The plaintiff is based in London and the defendant is based in Holland and they were both
negotiating through Telex. The plaintiff made a counteroffer which was accepted by telex by
the defendants agents in Holland.
The plaintiff claimed that there was a breach of contract and placed an action for leave to serve
a writ outside the jurisdiction.
The court only had authority to grant such leave if the contract was formed in England,
therefore giving English court’s jurisdiction. The court decided that the telex was received in
London and acceptance was effective on receipt. This is seen as the receipt rule.
• The general rule for communication of acceptance by an instantaneous method is that
actual communication is required. Therefore, acceptance takes place where and when the
message is received.
Denning LJ establishes that for instantaneous communications:
⁃ The general rule is that acceptance must be communicated in order to be effective.
⁃ If the acceptance is not communicated through the fault of the offeree, there will be no
contract.
⁃ If the acceptance is not communicated through the fault of the offeree, he will be
estopped from denying that the acceptance was received and there will be a contract.
⁃ If the acceptance is not communicated and there is no fault on the part of either party,
there will be no contract.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl and Stahlwarenhandels-Gesellschaft m.b.H (1983)
The plaintiff was an English company and the defendant was an Austrian company.
The acceptance was sent this time by telex from London to Vienna. The question from the
court was whether this contract was made in London or Vienna.
The court held that the contract was made in Vienna at the time and place the acceptance was
received.
Lord Wilberforce reiterated the rule in Entores to explain that telexes can be treated as
instantaneous communications. However, he stated that there is ‘no universal rule which can
cover all such cases’.
Office Hours
Within Office Hours
Key Case: Tenax Steamship Co Ltd v The Brimnes (Owners) (1975)
Entores v Miles Far East Corporations (1955)
In this case, the plaintiff is based in London during a series of negotiations by telex.
(International message transfer service).
The plaintiff is based in London and the defendant is based in Holland and they were both
negotiating through Telex. The plaintiff made a counteroffer which was accepted by telex by
the defendants agents in Holland.
The plaintiff claimed that there was a breach of contract and placed an action for leave to serve
a writ outside the jurisdiction.
The court only had authority to grant such leave if the contract was formed in England,
therefore giving English court’s jurisdiction. The court decided that the telex was received in
London and acceptance was effective on receipt. This is seen as the receipt rule.
• The general rule for communication of acceptance by an instantaneous method is that
actual communication is required. Therefore, acceptance takes place where and when the
message is received.
Denning LJ establishes that for instantaneous communications:
⁃ The general rule is that acceptance must be communicated in order to be effective.
⁃ If the acceptance is not communicated through the fault of the offeree, there will be no
contract.
⁃ If the acceptance is not communicated through the fault of the offeree, he will be
estopped from denying that the acceptance was received and there will be a contract.
⁃ If the acceptance is not communicated and there is no fault on the part of either party,
there will be no contract.
Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl and Stahlwarenhandels-Gesellschaft m.b.H (1983)
The plaintiff was an English company and the defendant was an Austrian company.
The acceptance was sent this time by telex from London to Vienna. The question from the
court was whether this contract was made in London or Vienna.
The court held that the contract was made in Vienna at the time and place the acceptance was
received.
Lord Wilberforce reiterated the rule in Entores to explain that telexes can be treated as
instantaneous communications. However, he stated that there is ‘no universal rule which can
cover all such cases’.
Office Hours
Within Office Hours
Key Case: Tenax Steamship Co Ltd v The Brimnes (Owners) (1975)
