Hyde v Wrench [1840] EWHC Ch J90 is a leading English contract law

English contract law

English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...

 case on the issue of counter-offers and their relation to initial offers. In it Lord Langdale

Henry Bickersteth, 1st Baron Langdale

Henry Bickersteth, 1st Baron Langdale KC, PC was an English law reformer and Master of the Rolls.He was born on 18 June 1783 at Kirkby Lonsdale, three years before his brother Edward Bickersteth...

 ruled that any counter-offer cancels the original offer.

Facts

Wrench offered to sell his farm in Luddenham to Hyde for £1200, an offer which Hyde declined. On 6 June 1840 Wrench wrote to Hyde's agent offering to sell the farm for £1000, stating that it was the final offer and that he would not alter from it. Hyde offered £950 in his letter by 8 June, and after examining the offer Wrench refused to accept, and informed Hyde of this on 27 June. On the 29th Hyde agreed to buy the farm for £1000 without any additional agreement from Wrench, and after Wrench refused to sell the farm to him he sued for breach of contract.

Judgment

Lord Langdale

Henry Bickersteth, 1st Baron Langdale

Henry Bickersteth, 1st Baron Langdale KC, PC was an English law reformer and Master of the Rolls.He was born on 18 June 1783 at Kirkby Lonsdale, three years before his brother Edward Bickersteth...

's judgement read:

Under the circumstances stated in this bill, I think there exists no valid binding contract between the parties for the purchase of this property. The defendant offered to sell it for £1000, and if that had been at once unconditionally accepted there would undoubtedly have been a perfect binding contract; instead of that, the plaintiff made an offer of his own, to purchase the property for £950, and he thereby rejected the offer previously made by the defendant. I think that it was not afterwards competent for him to revive the proposal of the defendant, by tendering an acceptance of it; and that, therefore, there exists no obligation of any sort between the parties.