Manchester Diocesan Council of Education v Commercial and General Investments [1969]

Court: High Court

Facts: The Manchester Diocesan Council of Education (C) offered school premises for sale by tender and specified that tenders needed to be accepted by sending acceptance to a particular address. Commercial and General Investments Ltd (D) submitted a tender offer. C initially sent the acceptance letter to D’s surveyor, which was not the specified address. C later sent another acceptance to the correct address. Before D received the correct acceptance, it withdrew its offer, arguing that the original offer had lapsed. The key issue was whether C's acceptance, sent to the incorrect address, was still valid and whether D's withdrawal of the offer was effective.

Issue: Was the acceptance of the offer valid despite being sent to the incorrect address, and did D's withdrawal of the offer before receiving the correct acceptance render the offer invalid?

Held: The court ruled in favor of C, finding that the acceptance sent to D’s surveyor was still valid as it was no less advantageous to D. The court determined that where an offer specifies a method of acceptance without making it mandatory, any equally effective method of acceptance will be sufficient to form a contract. Thus, C's acceptance, even when initially sent to the incorrect address, was valid.

Key Judicial Statement: Buckley J stated, “Where the offer states a mandatory method of acceptance it has to be complied with, but where the offer indicates a method without insisting that it is binding, any other mode which is no less advantageous concludes the contract.”

💡Leveluplaw: Manchester Diocesan Council of Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd illustrates that when an offer specifies a method of acceptance but does not insist on it being binding, an acceptance sent by a different method that is equally effective is still valid. This case highlights the flexibility in acceptance methods and underscores that the primary concern is whether the acceptance effectively communicates the offeree's intention to be bound by the offer.

Previous
Previous

Hyde v Wrench [1840]

Next
Next

Brogden v Metropolitan Railway [1877]