“Acceptance is not effective unless it is communicated by the offeree or by a duly authorised agent.”

Citation: – (1908) 99 LT 284 

Bench: – Kings Bench Division 

Facts of the case: –

Powell referred to as the plaintiff applied for the post of headmastership of a school. The manager hereby referred to as the appointing authority passed a resolution of appointing him; however, no formal acceptance was conveyed to him. One of the board members overheard the discussion and, in his individual capacity, informed the same to the plaintiff.

However, later the manager cancelled the resolution, aggrieved by the decision of the authority plaintiff sued the school for breach of contract.      

Issue Raised: –

  1. Whether there was a breach of contract?

Judgment: –

The Hon’ble Court held that there was no breach of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant as the acceptance was never conveyed by someone authorized by the school board; The Hon’ble Court further stated that in order to render a valid acceptance the same must be conveyed to the offeror by the offeree or someone authorized on his behalf. The Hon’ble Court opined, there must be notified of acceptance from the contracting party in some way information by an unauthorized person will not form a valid contract. 

Personal Opinion: –

In case of considering revocation of the contract, the authorization must be checked; the natural principle which should be followed is acceptance must come from a person who has the authority to accept.

One thought on “Powell v. Lee

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s