met. However, by this point, the offeree may well have legitimate expectations that the offer will not be revoked – not least because of the substantial degree of detrimental reliance he may have incurred (particularly so when the offer is of a reward for performing potentially time consuming and expensive tasks). Goff LJ (above) indicates that the courts are likely to regard the offer as irrevocable once performance has commenced (whether on the basis of a secondary implied contract or otherwise). This would also seem to follow from the case of Errington v Errington and Woods. A father, wishing to

doi:10.4324/9781843141518-37

Chapter

No Image Available

Chapter

met. However, by this point, the offeree may well have legitimate expectations that the offer will not be revoked – not least because of the substantial degree of detrimental reliance he may have incurred (particularly so when the offer is of a reward for performing potentially time consuming and expensive tasks). Goff LJ (above) indicates that the courts are likely to regard the offer as irrevocable once performance has commenced (whether on the basis of a secondary implied contract or otherwise). This would also seem to follow from the case of Errington v Errington and Woods. A father, wishing to

ABSTRACT

At the beginning of this, it was stated that one of the normal criteria for a valid acceptance is that it must have been communicated to and received by the offeror. The fact that this criterion is not is not applied universally is seen again in relation to contracts which take place via the medium of the post. At its simplest, since Adams v Lindsell,50 English law has adopted a rule that an acceptance via the post is valid from the moment of posting, not merely from when the letter is received by the offeror. In Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant,51 this was said to still be the case, even though the letter of acceptance never arrives at all.52