《《Case 3--Holwell Securities Ltd.v. Hughes》.doc

[1974] 1 W.L.R. 155FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLYPage PAGE81973 WL 40382 (CA (Civ Div)), [1974] 1 All E.R. 161, (1973) 26 P. C.R. 544, [1974] 1 W.L.R. 155, (1973) 117 S.J. 912, 11-06-1973 Times 40,382(Cite as: [1974] 1 W.L.R. 155)? 2008 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. *155 Holwell Securities Ltd. v. Hughes Court of Appeal ? CA (Civ Div) ? Russell, Buckley and Lawton L.JJ. ? 1973 Oct. 16, 17, 18; Nov. 5 ? Election or Option--Exercise--Agreement granting option 10 purchase property-- Option exercisable by notice in writing to intending vendor--Notice posted by intending purchaser but never received by intending vendor--Whether notice in writing to intending vendor--HYPERLINK /Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0vr=2.0DB=121177FindType=YSerialNum=0111192856Law of Property Act 1925 (15 16 Geo. 5, c. 20), s. 196 (4) (5) [FN1] FN1 HYPERLINK /Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0vr=2.0DB=121177FindType=YSerialNum=0111192856Law of Property Act 1925, s. 196 (4) (5): see post, pp. 161G, H, 162A. In October 1971 the defendant granted the plaintiffs a six months option to purchase certain property. The option was to be exercised by notice in writing to the defendant, and on April 14, 1972, the plaintiffs solicitors sent a written notice exercising the option by ordinary post to the defendant. The notice never reached the defendant or his address. On March 2, 1973, Templeman J. dismissed the plaintiffs action for specific performance on the ground that, as the defendant had not received the notice, the plaintiffs had not exercised the option to purchase. On appeal by the plaintiffs: -- Held, dismissing the appeal, that the need for the communication of an acceptance to an offeror could only be displaced by the artificial concept of communication by the act of posting where the offer was in its terms consistent with such displacement (post, pp. 157G, 160E, F); that in the present case the requirement of notice in writing to the intending vendor in the option