Henthorn v Fraser – 1892

January 17, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s):

Case Summary:

Henthorn v Fraser (1892) is a landmark English contract law case that delves into the concept of revocation of offer and its timing in relation to acceptance. It clarifies the principle that an offer can be revoked before it is accepted, leaving the offeree without a valid contract.

Facts of the Case:

  • Mr. Henthorn, interested in purchasing two houses, initially offered £600, which was rejected by Mr. Fraser, the owner.
  • Later, Mr. Fraser sent Mr. Henthorn a note with details of an option to purchase both houses for £750, valid for 14 days.
  • While considering the offer, Mr. Henthorn was informed that another potential buyer was interested.
  • In response, Mr. Fraser sent Mr. Henthorn a telegram withdrawing the offer before Mr. Henthorn had formally accepted it.
  • Despite the withdrawal, Mr. Henthorn sent a letter accepting the offer the same day.


  • Was the offer by Mr. Fraser effectively revoked before Mr. Henthorn’s acceptance, rendering the contract void?
  • At what point does an offer become irrevocable once communicated, even if not formally accepted?
  • Is the postal rule, stating acceptance takes effect when posted, applicable in this scenario involving both postal and telegram communication?


The Court of Appeal, by a majority decision, ruled in favor of Mr. Fraser. They held that:

  • Mr. Fraser’s telegram effectively revoked the offer before Mr. Henthorn’s acceptance letter was dispatched.
  • An offer remains revocable until acceptance is communicated to the offeror, regardless of any potential time limits mentioned in the offer itself.
  • The postal rule does not apply unless acceptance is sent through the same mode of communication as the offer (mail for mail). Since the offer was revoked via telegram, acceptance by post was ineffective.

Significance of the Case:

Henthorn v Fraser established a key principle in contract law: an offeror can revoke their offer any time before acceptance, unless bound by a contract or estoppel. It:

  • Emphasized the importance of swift communication when accepting an offer to avoid the risk of revocation.
  • Clarified the limitations of the postal rule and its applicability depending on the communication methods used.
  • Reinforced the concept of mutual agreement – a contract is formed only when there is a meeting of minds (offer and acceptance), and either party can retract their commitment before that point.

Elements of Contract Formation:

For a valid contract to exist, certain elements must be present:

  • Offer: A clear and unambiguous offer to enter into a binding agreement.
  • Acceptance: A clear and unconditional acceptance of the offer by the other party.
  • Consideration: Something of value exchanged between the parties (goods, services, money).
  • Intention to Create Legal Relations: Both parties must intend to be legally bound by the agreement.

Applying Henthorn v Fraser to Other Cases:

This case continues to influence legal judgments regarding offer and acceptance in diverse scenarios:

  • Cases involving complex communication chains with offers, counter-offers, and potential revocations often draw parallels to the timing considerations in Henthorn v Fraser.
  • The use of electronic communication methods, such as email and instant messaging, has led to legal discussions about adapting the principles of acceptance and revocation to the nuances of digital communication.
  • The case remains a key reference point for understanding the delicate dance of offer and acceptance and the power of timely communication in contract formation.


Henthorn v Fraser serves as a reminder of the critical role of effective communication and swift action in contractual matters. It underscores the importance of understanding the potential for offer revocation and ensuring clear acceptance within the correct timeframe to secure a binding agreement. While seemingly technical, the principles explored in this case have practical implications for anyone entering into any kind of contract, from everyday transactions to complex business deals.

Why Choose Us:

When our law coursework writers tackle your challenge, it’s like unleashing a legal brain trust. Imagine seasoned experts dissecting your topic, weaving intricate analyses like intricate tapestries. They scour legal databases, unearth landmark cases, and wield statutes like polished swords, dissecting arguments with surgical precision. Each sentence is laser-focused, each paragraph a crescendo of persuasive logic. Deadlines melt away as they sprint through research, crafting customized masterpieces that impress professors and illuminate complex legal nuances. With each challenge, they breathe life into your coursework, leaving you free to conquer exams and savor the sweet taste of academic triumph. So, step aside, writer’s block. Our legal writing titans are here to turn your coursework into a standing ovation.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Henthorn v Fraser – 1892' (Mylawtutor.net, September 2012 ) <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/henthorn-v-fraser-1892> accessed 23 April 2024
My, Law, Tutor. (September 2012 ). Henthorn v Fraser – 1892. Retrieved from https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/henthorn-v-fraser-1892
"Henthorn v Fraser – 1892." MyLawTutor.net. 9 2012. All Answers Ltd. 04 2024 <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/henthorn-v-fraser-1892>.
"Henthorn v Fraser – 1892." MyLawTutor. MyLawTutor.net, September 2012. Web. 23 April 2024. <https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/henthorn-v-fraser-1892>.
MyLawTutor. September 2012. Henthorn v Fraser – 1892. [online]. Available from: https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/henthorn-v-fraser-1892 [Accessed 23 April 2024].
MyLawTutor. Henthorn v Fraser – 1892 [Internet]. September 2012. [Accessed 23 April 2024]; Available from: https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/henthorn-v-fraser-1892.
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url=https://www.mylawtutor.net/cases/henthorn-v-fraser-1892 |title=Henthorn v Fraser – 1892 |publisher=MyLawTutor.net |date=September 2012 |accessdate=23 April 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Dick Bentley v Harold Smith The world of contracts can be a complex one, especially when it comes to the interpretation of statements made during negotiations. Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] stands as a significant case in English contract law, offering valuable insights into the distinction between a […]

Performance Cars v Abraham

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to Performance Cars v Abraham Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham (1962) stands as a landmark case in English tort law, specifically regarding the concept of causation in negligence claims. This case study delves into the factual background, the legal issue at stake, the court’s decision and reasoning, and the lasting impact of the case […]

R v Hennessy – 1989

. Last modified: April 15, 2024

Introduction to R v Hennessy – 1989 The criminal justice system grapples with complex issues when a defendant’s actions seem involuntary due to a medical condition. R v Hennessy (1989) stands as a significant case in English law, delving into the boundaries of the defense of automatism in the context of diabetic hypoglycemia. This case […]

go to top