Suppose a clerk in a London office taps out on the teleprinter an offer which is immediately recorded on a teleprinter in a Manchester office, and a clerk at that end taps out an acceptance. He thinks it has. In those cases, the offeror usually waives the need for communication in favour of the offeree performing some task. This, he said, is common in unilateral offer cases.
The offer was sent by Telex from England offering to pay £239 10s. Entores later wanted to sue the defendant, the parent company of the Dutch party. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 All ER 493; [1955] 2 QB 327; [1955] EWCA Civ 3.
If he does not repeat it, there is no contract. Both the original contract and ensuing variations were made in England and leave can properly be given for service out of the jurisdiction. The claimants (in England) sent a telex offer to the defendants (in Holland) The defendants replied with a telex communication; Issue.
The question for the court was at what point the contract came into existence. in Lo London,W.C.2. Citations: [1955] 2 QB 327; [1955] 3 WLR 48; [1955] 2 All ER 493; [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 511; (1955) 99 SJ 384; [1955] CLY 441. Entorres v Miles Far East [1955] 2 QB 327 Entores was a London-based trading company that sent an offer for the purchase of copper cathodes by telex from a company based in Amsterdam.
But in the United States of America it appears as if instantaneous communications are treated in the same way as postal communications.
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. I find that most of the European countries have substantially the same rule as that I have stated. In September of 1954 a series of communications passed between Entores and Miles by means of an equipment called Telex Service, consisting of a teleprinter and signalling unit and certain necessary subsidiary apparatus possessed by both parties.
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955] postal rule did not apply for instantaneous means of communications such as a telex.
The Defendants were an American corporation. So, for example, if the offeree sent an acceptance by fax and it is recorded on the machine, the defendant cannot say that there is no contract just because his fax machine had no ink and did not print the message out. Parker LJ noted that there is an exception to the rule that acceptances must be communicated to the offeror where the offeror has waived the need for communication. Since Telex was a form of instant messaging, the normal postal rule of acceptance would not apply and instead, acceptance would be when the message by Telex was received.
But if there should be a case where the offeror without any fault on his part does not receive the message of acceptance - yet the sender of it reasonably believes it has got home when it has not - then I think there is no contract.
Apart from the contract by Telex, the plaintiffs put the case in another way. Overview.
for longton c.i.f. But it may happen that the line does not go dead, yet the message does not get through to London. But he will know that the telephone conversation was abruptly broken off: because people usually say something to signify the end of the conversation.
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. If this is done, then it does not matter that the offeror never gets around to perceiving or accessing it. The contract is only complete when I have his answer accepting the offer. If the line goes dead in the middle of the sentence of acceptance, the teleprinter motor will stop. and … In view of this divergence, I think that we must consider the matter on principle: and so considered, I have come to the view I have stated, and I am glad to see that Applying the principles which I have stated, I think that the contract in this case was made in London where the acceptance was received. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk The Plaintiffs were an English company.
The question for our determination is where was the contract made? This was not a case where the postal rule applied. Accordingly, the contract was formed in the Netherlands.The Court of Appeal held in favour of the claimant. Not until I have his answer am I bound. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation Court of Appeal. This may happen if the listener on the telephone does not catch the words of acceptance, but nevertheless does not trouble to ask for them to be repeated: or the ink on the teleprinter fails at the receiving end, but the clerk does not ask for the message to be repeated: so that the man who sends an acceptance reasonably believes that his message has been received.
In a matter of this kind, however, it is very important that the countries of the world should have the same rule. My conclusion is, that the rule about instantaneous communications between the parties is different from the rule about the post. In that case, the Manchester clerk will not know of the failure but the London clerk will know of it and will immediately send back a message "not receiving."
To get permission, they had to show that the contract was formed in London. They say that the contract by Telex was varied by letter posted in Holland and accepted by conduct in England: and that this amounted to a new contract made in England.
Between - ENTORES LIMITED -v- MILES FAR EAST CORPORATION BAIL II Citation Number - [1955] EWCA Civ 3 appeared on behalf of the Appellants - MR GERALD GARDINER, Q.C. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. There is no contract at that moment. The other man may not know the precise moment when the line failed.