Routledge v Grant [1828]

Court: Court of Common Pleas

Facts: The defendant (D) offered to purchase the lease of the claimant’s (C) house and stated that the offer would remain open for six weeks. Before the six-week period expired, D decided to withdraw the offer and sent a withdrawal letter to C. Despite receiving the withdrawal letter, C attempted to accept the original offer within the six-week period. C had also previously communicated that he could accept the offer but could only grant possession at a later date. The key issue was whether D was bound to keep the offer open for the full six weeks as promised and whether C’s acceptance was valid.

Issue: Could D withdraw the offer before the six-week period expired, and if so, was C’s acceptance still effective?

Held: The court ruled in favor of D, finding that there was no binding contract. D was not obligated to keep the offer open for six weeks despite the initial promise. The court emphasized that an offer can be withdrawn at any time before it is formally accepted. Thus, the defendant's withdrawal of the offer before acceptance was valid, making C’s acceptance ineffective.

Key Judicial Statement: Chief Justice Best stated, “[I]f six weeks are given on one side to accept an offer, the other has six weeks to put an end to it. One party cannot be bound without the other.” He further explained, “[T]ill both parties are agreed, either has a right to be off.”

💡Leveluplaw: Routledge v Grant underscores that an offeror is not legally bound to keep an offer open for a specified period if there is no consideration or formal agreement to that effect. It reinforces the principle that an offer can be revoked at any time before acceptance, regardless of any initial promise to keep the offer open. This case highlights the mutual nature of contract formation and the importance of acceptance in finalizing a contract.