Wakilii

Gokaldas and Co. v Ghai and Sons (C.A. 53-1929.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1929] EACA 124 · 1929 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Magistrate's Court judgment for plaintiffs in contract dispute
Decision
Judgment for the original plaintiffs set aside; judgment entered for the original defendants

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Where an offer by telegram specified acceptance 'to-day' but was delayed in transmission and delivered the following day, time for acceptance runs from the date the offer was made, not from the date of receipt. There is no duty on an offeror to date their communication, and if they neglect to do so, the offeree cannot benefit from such neglect. The offeree should ascertain the date of the offer in the first instance. Appeal allowed.

Outcome

Judgment for the original plaintiffs set aside; judgment entered for the original defendants

Facts

On 12 February 1929, the respondents telegraphed the appellants requesting a quote for maize. On 14 February at 10:50 a.m., the appellants replied by telegram offering 20 tons at a specified rate with the words 'reply to-day'. The Post Office informed the appellants there would be delay due to line interruption. The telegram was delivered to the respondents on 15 February. The respondents accepted by telegram on 15 February. On 17 February, the appellants replied stating they had received the wire late and revised their rate. The Magistrate found a contract had been formed and gave judgment for the plaintiffs, reasoning that 'to-day' meant the day the telegram was actually received and that the defendants should have specified the date '14th' to protect themselves.

Issues

  1. Whether time for acceptance of an offer made by telegram runs from the date the offer was sent or from the date it was received by the offeree.
  2. Whether the defendants' failure to date their telegram or to specify a calendar date for acceptance rendered them bound by a contract when acceptance was communicated after the intended deadline.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment entered for the respondents set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the appellants (defendants).
  • Appellants to have costs of the appeal and of the original trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Offer and Acceptance — Time for Acceptance
There is no distinction between an offer made by letter and one made by telegram for purposes of determining when time for acceptance begins to run.
Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Offer and Acceptance — Dating of Offer
There is no duty on a person making an offer to date their communication, and if they neglect to do so, the party accepting cannot derive any benefit from such neglect, as the accepting party should ascertain the date of the offer in the first instance.
Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Offer and Acceptance — Time Runs from Dispatch
Where an offer specifies a time limit for acceptance without stating a calendar date, time runs from the date the offer was made or dispatched, not from the date it was received by the offeree.
Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Telegraphic Communications — Post Office Date Stamps
A date stamp of the delivering Post Office has nothing to do with the date of an offer made by telegram and cannot be used to determine when time for acceptance begins to run, as such a stamp might through error keep an offer open for an indefinite period.

Cases cited (1)

  • Morrell v. Studd and Millington [1913] 2 Ch 648

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Gokaldas and Co. v Ghai and Sons (C.A. 53-1929.) [1929] EACA 124 (1 January 1929)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.