- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear Sir,
In Acceptance , it is said in case of Household Fire Insurance Co v Grant
that Postal rule applies (shares case)
and outcome was “posting acceptance creates a ‘meeting of minds’, which created a binding contract”
but defendant never paid for shares which he was allotted by letter.
and in consideration it says
“Consideration is a two-way thing in simple/parol contracts”
so if defendant did not pay for shares , the transaction was not completed hence contract was not complete due consideration being one way only.
The concept of Executor also comes in
please clarify if i am mixing up two different things.
Thanks
I believe that the point at issue here is whether Grant owed money in respect of the shares that had been allotted to him. Was there a contract (offer and acceptance) and, if so, was that contract satisfied by the passing of consideration?
Yes, there was a contract (postal acceptance created the contract) Did both parties fulfil their obligations? No, Grant didn’t pay the money that was due
Then Grant died. Is death an acceptable way of avoiding one’s debts? No! So the executor had to include the debt to HFI Company in the reckoning of dead Grant’s estate
Better?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.