Search results
routledge v. grant 923 that an acceptance varying in any degree" from the terms of an offer, is, in effect, no acceptance; and Adams v. Lindsell (1 B. & A. 681), confirms the principle established in Cooke v.
Aug 16, 2019 · In Routledge v Grant, (1828) it was held that a promise to keep the offer open for a period of time will not be binding unless supported by consideration. The reason being that if Al would had given Chris money in return for him agreeing to keep the offer open, then he would have offered consideration, and would be able to hold him accountable ...
Sep 28, 2021 · Routledge v Grant 1828. Example case summary. Last modified: 28th Sep 2021. The court held that the original letter did not bind the defendant to keep the offer open for a full six weeks, and as such it had been validly withdrawn by the defendant, and the claimant’s purported acceptance was ineffective....
Cases where this principle has been examined include “Routledge v Grant” [1828] 1 Bing NC 124, where the court found the landlord had derogated from grant by blocking a path the tenant was granted right of access to, and “Harding v Wealands” [1897] 1 Ch. 681, where the court held the landlord had derogated from grant by blocking a right ...
Routledge v Grant 1828 In the case, Grant wrote to Routledge offering to purchase the lease of his house. The offer was to remain open for six weeks. Grant then changed his mind about purchasing the lease and, within the six weeks, withdrew his offer.
Once revoked, it is no longer open to the offeree to accept the original offer (Routledge v Grant (1828)). The corollary of this point is, of course, that once the offer is accepted it cannot subsequently be withdrawn. – Revocation is not effective until it is actually received by the offeree
Routledge v. Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653 is quoted where the defendant offered to buy a house giving the plaintiff six weeks to give a definite answer. It was held that the defendant was free to withdraw at any time before acceptance event though the six week period had not expired. The result of this is that where a tendering
