Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) is a foundational contract law case on offer and revocation by post. Here’s a summary of the facts and judgment.
- Case Name & Citation: Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344
- Court: Court of Common Pleas Division, High Court of Justice (England)
- Judge: Lindley J
- Areas of Law: Contract Law, Offer and Acceptance, Revocation of Offer, Postal Rule (Communication of Acceptance)
Facts: Byrne v Van Tienhoven
On 1 Oct 1880 Van Tienhoven posted an offer from Cardiff to Byrne in New York to sell 1,000 boxes of tinplate. Byrne received that offer on 11 Oct and accepted by telegram the same day.
Van Tienhoven had, however, posted a revocation letter on 8 Oct, but that revocation did not reach Byrne until 20 Oct. Byrne relied on their acceptance and sued when Van Tienhoven refused to perform.
Legal Issues
Whether the defendant’s revocation (sent by post) was effective to prevent formation of contract?
Does the postal rule apply to revocation as it does to acceptance?
Judgment / Ratio Decidendi
Lindley J held for Byrne.
The revocation was ineffective because it had not been communicated to the offeree before acceptance. An uncommunicated revocation is no revocation in law.
The court distinguished the postal rule for acceptance (where an acceptance is effective when posted) from revocation: posting a revocation is not effective until it is received.
The revocation was received after the acceptance was sent. Therefore, the contract had already been formed on 11 October when the acceptance telegram was sent.
Ratio Decidendi: A revocation of an offer is effective only when it is communicated to the offeree. Simply sending a letter of revocation is not enough. This case firmly confirms that although acceptances can be effective upon posting (postal rule), revocations do NOT follow the postal rule — they must be received.
Legal Significance (Byrne v Van Tienhoven)
The case is a leading authority that the postal rule does not apply to withdrawal of offers — revocation must be actually communicated to the offeree to take effect.
If an offeror wants to revoke an offer, they must ensure the offeree actually receives the revocation before the offeree accepts — simply posting a withdrawal letter isn’t enough.
References:
- https://www.australiancontractlaw.info/cases/database/byrne-v-van-tienhoven
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/592-sample.pdf
- https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLawJl/1997/18.pdf
- https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/byrne-and-co-v-van-tienhoven.php
- https://ipsaloquitur.com/contract-law/cases/byrne-v-leon-van-tien-hoven/
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- Powell v Lee (1908): Acceptance and Communication
- How Livingstone v Evans Defines Counteroffer in Contract Law
- Summergreene v Parker [1950] HCA 13: Contract Not Concluded
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.