Legal Case Summary
Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216
Postal acceptance – lost allotment letter – liability for unpaid shares
Facts
In September 1874, Mr Grant applied for 100 shares in the Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Company. He handed his written application to its agent in Glamorganshire, who forwarded it to the company in London. The company allotted the shares and posted a properly addressed letter notifying Grant. The letter never reached him.
The application referred to a £5 deposit and an undertaking to pay a further nineteen shillings per share within twelve months of allotment. Although Grant did not pay the £5 in cash, the company credited commission which it owed him against that amount. It later credited five shillings in dividends to his account.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
After the company entered liquidation, the official liquidator sought the remaining £94 15s. Grant refused, denying that he had become a shareholder. The jury found that the allotment letter had been posted but had not been received. Lopes J entered judgment for the company, and Grant appealed.
Issue
Where acceptance by post was contemplated, did posting a properly addressed allotment letter complete the contract even though it was never delivered? The dispute therefore concerned complete non-delivery, rather than a letter which merely arrived late.
Decision
On 1 July 1879, the Court of Appeal dismissed Grant’s appeal by a majority. Thesiger and Baggallay LJJ held that he was bound as a shareholder and liable for the outstanding balance. Bramwell LJ dissented. The majority treated the contract as complete when the acceptance was posted; its subsequent loss did not undo it.
Why the majority applied the postal rule
Thesiger LJ considered that Grant’s application implied authority to send the allotment notice by post. Relying particularly on Dunlop v Higgins and Harris’s Case, he regarded posting as sufficient communication in that setting. He explained this by treating the post office as the parties’ common agent. A private decision to accept would not suffice, but handing the acceptance to the post office supplied the necessary external act.
He also considered commercial certainty. If the acceptor could not rely on the bargain until receiving confirmation that the acceptance had arrived, transactions would be delayed. He accepted that postal loss could cause hardship, but considered a completed contract preferable to one made on posting and then undone by a postal accident. An offeror could protect against that risk by requiring actual communication of acceptance.
Baggallay LJ likewise read the authorities as covering non-delivery as well as delay. He expressly limited the rule to cases where acceptance by post was authorised, expressly or by implication from usage, the parties’ relationship or the offer’s terms. An ordinary application for shares supported that inference here. The majority rejected the contrary approach in British and American Telegraph Co v Colson.
Bramwell LJ’s dissent
Bramwell LJ distinguished permission to use the post from agreement that an undelivered letter should bind its recipient. In his view, acceptance ordinarily required actual communication, and there was no special agreement dispensing with it here. He also disputed the majority’s reading of the earlier authorities, distinguishing letters which eventually arrived from one that never did.
His objection was not simply that the rule might inconvenience business. Postal loss could cause hardship to either innocent party, and he saw no sufficient legal basis for transferring that risk to the offeror merely because the acceptor used the post. He would have allowed the appeal.
The significance of non-delivery
The case established that, within the circumstances recognised by the majority, a lost acceptance could still create a binding contract. The decision was about the legal effect of authorised postal acceptance, not an assumption that Grant had actually read or learned of the allotment.
Original report: Household Fire and Carriage Accident Insurance Co Ltd v Grant (1879) 4 Ex D 216.
