Dunlop and Others v Vincent Higgins and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 1848 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 24 February 1848 |
English Reports Citation: 9 E.R. 805
House of Lords
Contract - Acceptance by Post Letter - Damages.
Mews' Dig. iv. 13; v. 281; S.C. 12 Jur. 295; 6 Bell, 195. Considered on point as to contract by post in Hebb's Case, 1867, L.R. 4 Eq. 12; Harris' Case, 1872, L.R, 7 Ch. 587; Taylor v. Jones, 1875, 1 C.P.D. 90; Byrne v. Van Tienhoven, 1880, 5 C.P.D. 384; Gurney v. Townsend, 1888, 36 W.R. 532; and see In re London and Northern Bank (1900). 1 Ch. 220; Stevenson v. M'Lean, 1880, 5 Q,B.D. 351.
DUNLOP V. HIGGINS [1848] I H.L.C., 381 [381] DUNLOP and Others,-Appellants; VINCENT HIGGINS and Others,- Respondents [February 21, 22, 24, 1848]. [Mews' Dig. iv. 13 ; v. 281; S.C. 12 Jur. 295 ; 6 Bell, 195. Considered on point as to contract by post in Hebb's Case, 1867, L.R. 4 Eq. 12 ; Harris' Case, 1872, L.R, 7 Ch. 587 ò Taylor v. Jones, 1875, 1 C.P.D. 90; Byrne v. Van Tienhoven, 1880, 5 C.P.D. 384; Gurney v. Townsend, 1888, 36 W.B. 532 ; and see In re London and Northern Bank (1900). 1 Ch. 220; Stevenson v. M'Lean, 1880, 5 Q,B.D. 351.] Contract-Acceptance by Post Letter-Damages. A letter offering a contract does not bind the party to whom it is addressed to return an answer by the very next post after its delivery, or to lose the benefit of the contract; an answer, posted on the day of receiving the offer, is sufficient. A contract is accepted by the posting of a letter declaring its acceptance. ^ person putting into the post a letter declaring his acceptance of a contract offered, has done all that is necessary for him to do, and is not answerable for casualties occurring at the Post Office. In an action for damages for breach of contract in the sale of goods, the measure of damages is not merely the amount of the difference between the contract price, and the price at which such goods could be bought at the moment when the contract was broken ; but likewise a compensation for such profit as might have been made by the purchaser had the contract been duly performed. This was an appeal against a decree of the Court of Session, made under the following circumstances:-Messrs. Dunlop and Co. were iron masters in Glasgow, and Messrs. Higgins and Co. were iron merchants in Liverpool. Messrs. Higgins had written to Messrs. Dunlop respecting the price of iron, and received the following answer:-"Glasgow, 22nd January, 1845. We shall be glad to supply you with 2000 tons, pigs, at 65 shillings per ton, net, delivered here." Messrs. Higgins wrote the following reply:-"Liverpool, 25th January, 1845. You [382] say 65s. net, for 2000 tons pigs. Does this mean for our usual four months billl Please give us this information in course of post, as we have to decide with other parties on Wednes,-day next." On the 28th Messrs. Dunlop wrote,-" Our quotation meant 65s. net, and not a four months bill." This letter was received by Messrs. Higgins on the 30th of January, and on the same day, and by post, but not by the first post of that day, they dispatched an answer in these terms.-" We will take the 2000 tons pigs, you offer us. Your letter crossed ours of yesterday, but we shall be glad to have your answei respecting the additional 1000 tons. In your first letter you omitted to state any terms; hence the delay." This letter was dated " 31st January." It was not delivered in Glasgow until two o'clock, p.m., on the 1st of February, and, on the same day, Messrs. Dunlop sent the following reply :-" Glasgow, 1st February, 1845. Vve have your letter of yesterday, but are sorry that we cannot now enter the 2000 ions pig iron, our offer of the 28th not having been accepted in course." Messrs. Higgins wrote on the 2d February to say that they had erroneously dated their letter on the 31st January, that it was really written and posted on the 30th, in proof of which they referred to the post mark. They did not, however, explain the delay which had taken place in its delivery. The iron was not furnished to them, and iron having risen very rapidly in the market, the question whether there had been a complete contract between these parties was brought before a court of law. Messrs. Higgius instituted a suit in the Court of Session for damages, as for breach of contract. The defence of Messrs. Dunlop was, that their letter of the 28th, offering the contract, not having been answered in due time, there had been no such acceptance as would convert that offer into a lawful and binding contract; that their letter having been delivered at Liverpool before eight o'clock in the morning of the 30th of January, Messrs. [383] Higgins ought, according to the usual practice of merchants, to have answered it by the first post, which left Liverpool at three o'clock p.m. on that day. A letter so dispatched would be due in Glasgow at two o'clock, p.m., on the 31st of January; another post left Liverpool for Glasgow every day at one o'clock, a.m., 805 I H.L.C., 384 DUNLOP V. BIGGINS [1848] and letters to be dispatched by that post must be put into the office during the preceding evening, and if any letter had been sent by that post on the morning of the 31st, it must have been delivered in Glasgow in the regular course of post at eight o'clock in the morning of the 1st of February. As no communication from Messrs. Higgins arrived by either of theoe posts, Messrs. Dunlop contended that they were entitled to treat their offer as not accepted, and that they were not bound to wait until the third post delivered in Glasgow at two o'clock p.m., of Saturday the 1st of February (at which time Messrs. Higgins' letter did actually arrive), before they entered into other contracts, the taking of which would disable them from performing the contract they had offered to Messrs. Higgins. The cause cam befere Lord Ivory, as Lord Ordinary, who directed an issue, which he settled in the following terms : - " Whether, about the end of January, 1845, Messrs. Higgins purchased from Messrs. Dunlop 2000 tons of pig iron, at the price of 65s. per ton, and whether Messrs. Dunlop wrongfully failed to deliver the same, to the damage, loss, and injury of the pursuers? Damages laid at £6000." This issue was tried before the Lord Justice General, when it appeared that the letter of Messrs. Higgins, accepting the offer, was written on the 30th; that it was posted a short time after the closing of the bags for the dispatch at three o'clock, p.m., on that day, and consequently "lid not leave Liverpool till the dispatch at one o'clock in the morning of the 31st; that in consequence of [384] the slippery state of the roads, the bag then sent did not arrive at Warrington till after the departure of the down train that ought to have conveyed it, and that this circumstance occasioned it to be delayed beyond the ordinary hour of delivery. The Lord Justice General told the jury, "that he adopted the law as duly expounded in the case of Adams v. Lindsell (1 Barn, and Aid. 681), and which is as follows:-A., by a letter, offers to sell to B. certain specified goods, receiving an answer by return of post; the letter being misdirected, the answer notifying the acceptance of the offer arrived two days later than it ought to have done; on the day following that when it would have arrived, if the original letter had been properly directed, A. sold the goods to a third person," and in which it was held " that there was a contract binding the parties from the moment the offer was accepted, and that B. was entitled to recover against A. in an action for not completing his contract." The counsel for Messrs. Dunlop tendered the following exceptions:-The first exception related to evidence, and alleged " that no evidence to shew that the letter, purporting to be dated on the 31st, was really written on the 30th of January, ought to have been admitted." The other exceptions related to the charge, and were as follow: 2. In so far as his Lordship directed the jury, in point of law, that if Messrs. Higgins posted their acceptance of the offer in due time, according to the usage of trade, they are not responsible for any casualties in the Post Office establishment. 3. In so far as his Lordship did not direct the jury, in point of law, that if a merchant makes an offer to a party at a distance, by poskletter, requiring to be answered within a certain time, and no answer arrives within such time as it should arrive, if the party had written and [385] posted his letter within the time allowed, the offerer is free, though the answer may have been actually written and posted in due time, if he is not proved to be aware of accidental circumstances preventing the due arrival of the answer. 4. In so far as his Lordship did not direct the jury, in point of law, that in the case above supposed, if an answer arrives, bearing a date beyond the time limited as above for making answer, and arrives by a mail, and is delivered at a time cor responding to such date, the offerer is entitled to consider himself free to deal with the goods as his own, either to sell or to hold, if he be not in the knowledge that the answer received was truly written of an earlier date, and delayed in its arrival by accident. 5. In so far as his Lordship did not direct the jury, in point of law, that in case of failure to deliver goods sold at a stipulated price, and immediately deliverable, the true measure of damage is the difference between the stipulated price and the market price, on or about the day the contract is broken, or at or about the time when the purchaser might have supplied himself. 806 DUNLOP V. HIGGIKS [1848] I H.L.C., 386 These exceptions were afterwards argued before the judges of the First Division, who pronounced an interlocutor, disallowing the exceptions; and that interlocutor was the subject of the present appeal. Mr. Bethell and Mr. Anderson for the appellants. The question raised in this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie
...to contracts made by post, which are complete when and where the letter of acceptance is posted: Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HLC 381. These rules were adopted for reasons of pragmatic convenience, and provide a perfectly serviceable test for determining ......
-
Hodgson v Armstrong
...which applies to postal acceptances of an offer in the law of contract, as illustrated by the well-known line of cases such as Dunlop v. Higgins (1848), 1 House of Lords Cases 381. But, upon further consideration, it appears that to apply such a principle here would give rise to many compli......
-
Ditto Ltd v Drive-Thru Records LLC (a Ltd liability partnership registered under the laws of the State of California)
...by post, which are complete when and where the letter of acceptance is posted: Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HL Cas 381. These rules were adopted for reasons of pragmatic convenience, and provide a perfectly serviceable test for determining whether a contr......
-
Ditto Ltd v Drive-Thru Records LLC (a Ltd liability partnership registered under the laws of the State of California)
...by post, which are complete when and where the letter of acceptance is posted: Adams v Lindsell (1818) 1 B & Ald 681, Dunlop v Higgins (1848) 1 HL Cas 381. These rules were adopted for reasons of pragmatic convenience, and provide a perfectly serviceable test for determining whether a contr......