sonbahis girişsonbahissonbahis güncelyakabetyakabet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhilbethilbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişaresbetaresbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişteosbetteosbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişkulisbetkulisbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişteosbetteosbet girişjojobetholiganbetjojobet girişcasibom girişpusulabet girişvaycasinojojobet girişcasibom girişholiganbet girişholiganbetcasibomvaycasino girişholiganbet girişgrandpashabetpusulabetcratosroyalbetimajbetsekabetpusulabet girişholiganbet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişhilbethilbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişteosbetteosbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişエクスネスpusulabetholiganbetpusulabetcasibomjojobettrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişyakabetyakabet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişteosbetteosbet girişaresbetaresbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbet girişatlasbetteosbet girişteosbetwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişyakabetyakabet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişaresbetaresbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişextrabetextrabet girişibizabetibizabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişkulisbetkulisbet girişatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişyakabetyakabet girişaresbetaresbet girişhilbethilbet girişteosbetteosbet girişhiltonbethiltonbet giriştrendbettrendbet girişwinxbetwinxbet girişextrabetextrabet girişibizabetibizabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişcoinbarcoinbar girişodeonbetodeonbet girişlunabetlunabet girişmatbetmatbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişjojobetatlasbetatlasbet girişsüratbetsüratbet girişaresbetaresbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmavibetmavibet girişhızlıcasinohızlıcasino giriştrendbettrendbet girişbahiscasinobahiscasino girişwinxbetwinxbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişlunabetlunabet girişlunabetlunabet girişteosbet girişteosbetteosbetmedusabahis girişmedusabahismedusabahisodeonbet girişodeonbetodeonbetcoinbar girişcoinbarcoinbarkalebet girişkalebetkalebetefesbet girişefesbetefesbetmeritking girişmeritkingmeritkingnakitbahis girişnakitbahisnakitbahiselitcasino girişelitcasinoelitcasinobetbox girişbetboxbetboxartemisbet girişartemisbetartemisbetartemisbetartemisbet girişartemisbetartemisbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişkulisbetkulisbet girişmeritkingmeritking girişmeritkingmeritking girişpusulabetpusulabetrinabetrinabetbetkolikbetkolikkulisbetkulisbetbahiscasinobahiscasinomegabahismegabahisartemisbetartemisbetlunabetlunabetmeritkingmeritkingibizabetibizabet girişextrabetextrabet girişkingbettingkingbetting girişbetciobetcio girişpusulabetpusulabet girişnakitbahisnakitbahis girişhilbethilbet girişhiltonbet girişhiltonbetlunabetlunabet girişmatbetmatbet girişholiganbetholiganbet girişjojobetjojobetholiganbetjojobetjojobetjojobet
Skip to content
Home » Routledge v Grant 

Routledge v Grant 

The case of Routledge v Grant [1828] is a landmark decision in English contract law concerning the principles governing the formation of contracts, particularly the revocation of offers. It established a fundamental rule that an offeror can withdraw an offer at any time before it is accepted, even if a specific period for acceptance has been mentioned. 

This case remains an important authority in illustrating that a contract requires mutuality of obligation, and one party cannot be bound while the other remains free.

Facts of the Routledge v Grant

In Routledge v Grant [1828], the defendant wrote to the claimant offering to purchase the lease of the claimant’s house. In his written offer, the defendant stated that the offer would remain open for a period of six weeks, during which the claimant could decide whether to accept it.

However, during this six-week period and before any acceptance had been communicated, the defendant changed his mind about proceeding with the purchase. He wrote a second letter to the claimant, withdrawing his initial offer. Despite receiving this letter of withdrawal within the six-week period, the claimant attempted to accept the original offer, believing it was still open.

The claimant argued that the defendant was bound by his earlier promise to keep the offer open for six weeks and that his acceptance within that period created a binding contract. The defendant contended, however, that he had validly revoked the offer before acceptance and was therefore not legally bound to complete the transaction.

In a related version of the facts recorded in legal reports, the defendant had offered to take possession of the property by 25 July for a term of 21 years, requesting a reply by 29 April. The claimant, who had only one year left on his lease, took steps to extend his lease with his landlord and on 7 April sent a letter agreeing to the deal but mentioning that possession could only be given on 1 August. 

This response differed slightly from the defendant’s terms. Before any final acceptance, the defendant withdrew his offer, which the claimant refused to acknowledge, claiming reliance on the offer. When the claimant later indicated readiness to deliver possession on 25 July and sent the keys, the defendant rejected them.

Legal Issue

The key issue before the Court of Common Pleas in Routledge v Grant [1828] was whether the defendant was legally bound to keep his offer open for the stated six weeks, and consequently, whether his withdrawal before acceptance was invalid. In other words, the court had to determine if an offeror who promises to hold an offer open for a fixed period can revoke it before the offeree’s acceptance.

Court’s Decision in Routledge v Grant

The court decided in favour of the defendant. It held that the defendant had validly withdrawn his offer before it had been accepted by the claimant. Therefore, no binding contract existed between the parties.

The court found that the original letter from the defendant did not create any legal obligation to keep the offer open for the full six weeks. While the offer stated a time period, this did not constitute a separate binding promise supported by consideration. Consequently, the defendant’s revocation was effective, and the claimant’s later acceptance was ineffective since the offer was no longer in existence.

Moreover, even if there had been an agreement, it was noted that the claimant failed to prove he had formally extended his lease with his landlord. The lease extension required proper documentation, and the claimant did not present such evidence. Thus, he was not in a position to grant a 21-year lease as offered, which meant any alleged contract would have been unenforceable in any case.

Legal Reasoning

Chief Justice Best, delivering the judgement in Routledge v Grant [1828], articulated an essential principle of contract law — mutuality of obligation. He stated that where an offer is made with a fixed time period for acceptance or rejection, the offeror retains the right to withdraw it at any time before acceptance.

Best CJ reasoned that for a contract to be valid, it must be mutual, meaning that both parties must be bound or neither must be bound. If the offeree is not bound to accept, then the offeror should not be bound to keep the offer open. Hence, until acceptance is communicated, there is no mutual agreement and, therefore, no enforceable contract.

The Chief Justice famously remarked:

“If a party make an offer and fix a period within which it is to be accepted or rejected by the person to whom it is made, though the latter may at any time within the stipulated period accept the offer, still the former may also at any time before it is accepted retract it; for to be valid, the contract must be mutual: both or neither of the parties must be bound by it.”

The court further noted that the claimant’s letter of 7 April could not be treated as a valid acceptance. This was because it did not mirror the exact terms of the offer — the defendant’s offer required possession by 25 July, whereas the claimant stated he could only deliver possession by 1 August. Such a response amounted to a counter-offer, not an acceptance, which legally terminates the original offer. Therefore, at the time of the defendant’s withdrawal, there was no outstanding offer capable of being accepted.

Key Principle Established

The decision in Routledge v Grant [1828] established a crucial rule in English contract law:

An offeror may withdraw an offer at any time before it is accepted, even if the offer states that it will remain open for a specified period.

This rule is subject to one important qualification that emerged in later cases — an offer can only be made irrevocable if there is consideration (something of value) given by the offeree in exchange for the promise to keep it open. This later concept became the basis of the “option contract”, where the offeror’s promise to hold an offer open is enforceable only if supported by consideration.

Conclusion

Routledge v Grant [1828] remains an enduring authority in English contract law, emphasising the importance of mutual consent and consideration in creating enforceable agreements. The court’s decision clarified that, in the absence of acceptance, an offer imposes no legal duty on either party.

The case also demonstrated that a promise to keep an offer open, without consideration, is not binding and can be revoked before acceptance. Through its clear articulation of the principles governing offers and revocation, Routledge v Grant [1828] continues to serve as a guiding precedent for understanding the contractual relationship between offerors and offerees.