My Law Tutor

Henthorn v Fraser – 1892

January 17, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

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 Since the offer was revoked via telegram, acceptance by post was ineffective.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' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). Henthorn v Fraser – 1892. Retrieved from
"Henthorn v Fraser – 1892." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"Henthorn v Fraser – 1892." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . Henthorn v Fraser – 1892. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. Henthorn v Fraser – 1892 [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Henthorn v Fraser – 1892 | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Jones v Kernott

UK Law . Last modified: December 8, 2023

Case Introduction and Background Jones v Kernott is a significant legal case regarding property ownership. The case revolves around a dispute between Mr. Jones and Ms. Kernott over a jointly owned property. They had previously purchased a home together but later separated. The disagreement arose when they couldn’t agree on the division of the property. […]

Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary

UK Law . Last modified: April 3, 2024

Introduction to Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary A seemingly innocent act of childhood exploration on the roof of a youth club turned into a tragic accident, sparking a legal battle with lasting implications for child safety and occupier’s liability. Young v Kent County Council (2005) centered around a young boy’s fall through […]

R v Ryan – 1996

UK Law . Last modified: April 2, 2024

Introduction to R v Ryan – 1996 R v Ryan – 1996 is a notable case in legal jurisprudence, characterized by its significance in criminal law proceedings. This case study provides a comprehensive analysis of the background, facts, legal issues, court proceedings, precedent, and broader implications of R v Ryan – 1996. Background The case […]

Offord v Davies – 1862

UK Law . Last modified: April 1, 2024

Introduction to Offord v Davies – 1862 Offord v Davies (1862) is a landmark case in English contract law concerning the formation of contracts, specifically the offer and acceptance process. It serves as a foundation for understanding the revocability of offers before acceptance. This case study delves into the details of the dispute, the legal […]

Binion v Evans [1972]

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Binion v Evans [1972] The 1972 case of Binion v Evans stands as a landmark judgment in English land law. It significantly broadened the scope of constructive trusts and their application to situations involving licenses to occupy land. This case study delves into the details of the dispute, the legal principles involved, and […]

Hunter v Canary Wharf

UK Law . Last modified: December 26, 2023

Introduction to Hunter v Canary Wharf: The Hunter v Canary Wharf case carries significant weight within property law discussions. This legal dispute involved Mr. Hunter and the Canary Wharf Group and brought to light critical matters regarding property rights and what constitutes interference with those rights. The case gained prominence due to its implications in […]

go to top