Routledge v Grant 1828

January 17, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s):

Case Summary:

Routledge v Grant (1828) is a landmark English contract law case that centers around the concept of offer and acceptance, specifically addressing the timeframe for acceptance and the potential for revocation before acceptance is communicated. It clarifies that an offeror retains the right to withdraw their offer before it is formally accepted by the offeree.

Facts of the Case:

  • Mr. Routledge, the owner of a house, wrote to Mr. Grant, expressing his interest in selling the property for £650 and specifying that the offer would remain open for six weeks.
  • Within the six-week period, but before formally accepting the offer, Mr. Grant informed Mr. Routledge that he had changed his mind about purchasing the house.
  • Subsequently, Mr. Routledge received Mr. Grant’s formal letter of acceptance within the six-week timeframe.


  • Was Mr. Grant’s change of mind before formal acceptance a valid revocation of the offer, rendering the subsequent acceptance ineffective?
  • Did the six-week window specified in the initial offer bind Mr. Routledge to keep the offer open even after learning of Mr. Grant’s hesitation?
  • Can an offeror revoke an offer at any time before acceptance, or are there exceptions based on timeframe stipulations within the offer itself?


The Court of King’s Bench, by a majority decision, ruled in favor of Mr. Routledge. They held that:

  • Mr. Grant’s communication of his change of mind effectively revoked the offer before Mr. Routledge received the formal acceptance letter.
  • The six-week period simply outlined the duration Mr. Grant had to consider the offer, not a guarantee against revocation in the interim.
  • An offeror has the right to withdraw their offer at any time before acceptance, regardless of timeframes mentioned within the offer itself, unless bound by a formal contract or estoppel.

Significance of the Case:

Routledge v Grant established a cornerstone principle in contract law: an offer remains revocable until it is accepted, irrespective of any stated timeframes within the offer itself. It:

  • Emphasized the importance of timely communication when accepting an offer to avoid the risk of revocation.
  • Clarified that an offeror retains control over their commitment until acceptance is communicated, even if they initially suggest a longer timeframe for consideration.
  • 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 Routledge v Grant to Other Cases:

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

  • Cases involving counter-offers, negotiations, and potential revocations within complex communication chains often draw parallels to the timing considerations in Routledge v Grant.
  • 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 power of timely communication and the potential pitfalls of relying solely on stated timeframes within an offer.


Routledge v Grant serves as a reminder of the critical role of prompt acceptance in securing a binding contract. It underscores the importance of understanding the offeror’s right to revoke and emphasizes the need for clear communication throughout the offer and acceptance process. While seemingly technical, the principles explored in this case have practical implications for anyone entering into any kind of agreement, from everyday transactions to complex business deals.

Why Choose Us:

Struggling to keep up with demanding law assignments? Our custom law coursework help bridges the gap between overwhelmed and accomplished. Forget generic templates and cookie-cutter solutions. We dive deep into your unique topic, crafting tailor-made essays, analyses, and case briefs that impress professors and showcase your legal aptitude. Our expert legal writers wield statutes like swords, dissecting arguments with surgical precision. Need intricate legal research? Consider it done. We scour databases, unearth landmark cases, and weave them into your work like golden threads, illuminating even the most complex concepts. Forget scrambling to meet deadlines – we work at your pace, ensuring thoroughness without the last-minute panic. So, reclaim your study time and say goodbye to academic stress. With our custom law coursework help, you’ll conquer assignments and emerge victorious in the courtroom of your academic career.

Cite This Work

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

All Answers ltd, 'Routledge v Grant 1828' (, September 2012 ) <> accessed 25 April 2024
My, Law, Tutor. (September 2012 ). Routledge v Grant 1828. Retrieved from
"Routledge v Grant 1828." 9 2012. All Answers Ltd. 04 2024 <>.
"Routledge v Grant 1828." MyLawTutor., September 2012. Web. 25 April 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. September 2012. Routledge v Grant 1828. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 25 April 2024].
MyLawTutor. Routledge v Grant 1828 [Internet]. September 2012. [Accessed 25 April 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Routledge v Grant 1828 | |date=September 2012 |accessdate=25 April 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

. Last modified: April 24, 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