Wenkheim v Ardnt (1873) 1 JR 73
Contract law – Offer and acceptance
Facts
This case was heard and decided in New Zealand. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff offered to marry the defendant. The defendant sent her acceptance of the marriage proposal by way of a letter back to the plaintiff. The defendant’s mother attempted to retract her daughter’s acceptance of the marriage proposal offered to her daughter by the plaintiff. She did so by communicating this by telegram, before her daughter’s acceptance was received by the plaintiff. From this, a dispute arose between the parties and an action was brought to the court.
Issue
The key issue for the court to establish, in this instance, was whether the acceptance of the marriage proposal had been effectively retracted by the mother by sending the telegram to the plaintiff, before her daughter’s acceptance had been received. In considering this matter, the court was also required to understand the status of the defendant’s mother in proceedings. Specifically, this would be to determine whether she was a party to the communication between the plaintiff and defendant or whether she would be deemed to be an unauthorised third party.
Held
The court held that the retraction of the offer, by way of a telegram from the defendant’s mother, was invalid under the circumstances. The court found that retraction of acceptance was not available to the defendant, particularly when introduced by an unauthorised third party. The court ordered that one farthing was paid to the plaintiff for the damage caused by the actions of the defendant’s mother.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the New Zealand case of Wenkheim v Arndt (1873) 1 JR 73 and the legal principles it illustrates. The case remains a recognised authority in contract law for the proposition that an acceptance, once dispatched, cannot be withdrawn by an unauthorised third party, and that an offeree cannot unilaterally retract a valid acceptance. These principles continue to be cited in discussions of the postal rule and the mechanics of offer and acceptance in contract law.
Readers should note that this is a nineteenth-century New Zealand decision and does not carry binding authority in English and Welsh courts. It is treated as a persuasive illustration of accepted contractual principles rather than binding precedent. The core rules on offer and acceptance it reflects remain consistent with the general approach taken in English contract law. No statutory changes or subsequent cases have materially undermined the principles described. However, students should be aware that English law on offer and acceptance is primarily developed through English and, where applicable, UK Supreme Court and House of Lords authority, and should use this case accordingly as a supporting illustration rather than primary authority.
