This preview has intentionally blurred parts. Sign up to view the full document

View Full Document

Unformatted Document Excerpt

Request: Print Current Document: 9 Time Of Request: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 Send To: ntun0165084 [3e98c600:019dc63] NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY BOOTS LIBRAR GOLDSMITH ST NOTTINGHAM, GBR NG1 5LS Terms: (tinn v hoffmann) Source: All Subscribed Sources Project ID: None 14:38:55 Page 1 Tinn v Hoffmann & Co (1873) 29 LT 271 Court: pre-SCJA 1873 Judgment Date: circa 1873 Cases referring to this case Annotations: All Cases Court: ALL COURTS Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First) Treatment Case Name Citations Court Date Applied Manchester Diocesan [1969] 3 All ER 1593, Council for Education v [1970] 1 WLR 241, 21 P Commercial and General & CR 38, 114 Sol Jo 70 Investments Ltd Ch D circa 1969 Followed Willis v Baggs and Salt (1925) 69 Sol Jo 543, 41 TLR 453 KBD Signal circa 1925 Catchwords & Digest CONTRACT - FORMATION OF CONTRACT - CONTRACTS MADE THROUGH THE POST OFFER - WHEN MADE - LETTERS CROSSING -- WHETHER CONTRACT Two persons, each in ignorance at the time of what the other had done, wrote a letter to each other on the same day, the one offering to buy a certain article at a certain price, and the other offering to sell the same article at the same price. The letters crossed each other in the post: Held such cross offers would not make a binding contract, and the offer in one of such letters could not amount to an acceptance of the offer contained in the other. 'Reply by return of post,' does not mean exclusively, 'reply by letter by return of post.' A reply by telegram or by verbal message, or by any means, not later than a letter sent by post would reach its destination, would equally satisfy the requisition (per curium). ---- End of Request ---Print Request: Current Document: 9 Time Of Request: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 14:38:55 ... View Full Document

End of Preview

Sign up now to access the rest of the document