Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344

Van Tienhoven posted an offer to sell tinplates from Cardiff to Byrne in New York. Byrne accepted by telegram upon receipt, but Van Tienhoven had already posted a revocation letter. The court held that revocation is only effective upon actual communication to the offeree, not upon posting.

Facts

Van Tienhoven & Co posted a letter from their office in Cardiff to Byrne & Co in New York City on 1 October, offering 1000 boxes of tinplates for sale. Byrne & Co received the letter on 11 October and telegraphed their acceptance on the same day. However, on 8 October, Van Tienhoven had sent another letter withdrawing their offer because tinplate prices had risen by 25%. The revocation letter did not reach Byrne until 20 October. Van Tienhoven refused to proceed with the sale, arguing their revocation was effective.

Issues

The key legal issue was whether a revocation of an offer is effective when posted, or only when it is actually communicated to and received by the offeree. The defendants argued that the postal rule, which deems acceptance effective upon posting, should equally apply to revocation.

Judgment

Lindley J held that the withdrawal of the offer was not effective until it was actually communicated to the offeree. He ruled in favour of Byrne & Co, finding that a binding contract had been formed when they telegraphed their acceptance on 11 October.

There is no doubt an offer can be withdrawn before it is accepted, and it is immaterial whether the offer is expressed to be open for acceptance for a given time or not… It may be taken as now settled that where an offer is made and accepted by letters sent through the post, the contract is completed the moment the letter accepting the offer is posted… But this principle appears to me to be inapplicable to the case of the withdrawal of an offer.

Lindley J emphasised the practical injustice that would result from applying the postal rule to revocations:

If the defendants’ contention were to prevail no person who had received an offer by post and had accepted it would know his position until he had waited such a time as to be quite sure that a letter withdrawing the offer had not been posted before his acceptance of it.

Implications

This case established the important distinction between acceptance and revocation in postal communications. While acceptance is effective upon posting (the postal rule from Adams v Lindsell), revocation requires actual communication to the offeree. This asymmetry protects the offeree who, having accepted in good faith, should not be prejudiced by a revocation they could not have known about. The decision provides commercial certainty and remains a foundational authority on the communication requirements for revocation of offers in English contract law.

Verdict: Judgment for the plaintiffs (Byrne & Co). The revocation was ineffective as it had not been communicated to the offeree before acceptance, and therefore a binding contract existed.

Source: Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344