Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 ChD 463
Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 ChD 463
Facts of the Case:
Dodds (the defendant) offered to sell some property to Dickinson (the plaintiff).
Dodds stated the offer would remain open until a specified date.
Before Dickinson accepted the offer, Dodds sold the property to a third party.
Dickinson tried to accept the offer after Dodds had already sold the property.
Dickinson argued that the offer was still open and that Dodds was bound by it.
Legal Issues:
Can an offeror revoke an offer before acceptance?
Is communication of revocation necessary for it to be effective?
Does the offeree have to be directly informed of revocation, or is knowledge of revocation by any means sufficient?
Court’s Holding:
The Court held that Dodds had effectively revoked the offer before Dickinson accepted it.
Crucially, the revocation did not have to be communicated directly by Dodds to Dickinson.
It was enough that Dickinson had knowledge of the revocation through a reliable third party (in this case, a notification from a third party who knew the offer was withdrawn).
Therefore, since Dickinson knew the offer was revoked before acceptance, no contract was formed.
Legal Principles Established:
Revocation of Offer Before Acceptance:
An offer can be revoked at any time before it is accepted.
Communication of Revocation:
The revocation must be communicated to the offeree before acceptance to be effective.
Third-Party Knowledge Counts:
It is not necessary for the offeror to communicate revocation directly; if the offeree has actual knowledge of revocation (even through a third party), the revocation is effective.
No Binding Promise to Keep Offer Open (No Option Contract):
Unless supported by consideration, an offeror is not bound to keep the offer open for a specified period.
Relation to Other Case Law:
Errington v Errington [1952] 1 KB 290:
This case clarified situations where an offer cannot be revoked once the offeree has begun performance (unilateral contracts), contrasting with Dickinson v Dodds where revocation was allowed before acceptance.
Byrne & Co v Van Tienhoven (1880) 5 CPD 344:
This case distinguished from Dickinson v Dodds by emphasizing that revocation must be communicated to the offeree to be effective, though in Byrne, the revocation was not communicated until after acceptance.
Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653:
Reinforced the principle that an offer can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance.
Significance:
Dickinson v Dodds is a landmark case establishing the principle that revocation of an offer is effective once the offeree has knowledge of it, regardless of whether the offeror personally communicated it.
It highlights the importance of communication and knowledge in contract formation.
It protects the offeror’s freedom to withdraw an offer but balances it with the need for the offeree to have clear knowledge of such withdrawal.
The case also underscores the absence of an option contract when no consideration is given to keep an offer open.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 ChD 463 |
| Legal Area | Offer and Acceptance, Revocation of Offer |
| Facts | Offer made to sell property, revoked before acceptance |
| Key Issue | Whether revocation was effective before acceptance |
| Court’s Decision | Revocation valid since offeree knew about it via third party |
| Legal Principles | Offer can be revoked anytime before acceptance; knowledge of revocation by offeree is essential |
| Related Cases | Byrne v Van Tienhoven, Routledge v Grant, Errington v Errington |
| Significance | Clarified communication and knowledge requirements for revocation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments