Lee Seg Heng & Ors V Guardian Assurance Case Study

Moreover, the postal acceptance rule is further illustrated in the case of Lee Seng Heng & Ors v Guardian Assurance Co Ltd . In this case, the plaintiffs insured their stock in trade with the defendants against fire. Subsequently, a fire broke out on the insured premises and the plaintiffs made a claim under the policy. The defendants' solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs saying that on the date of the fire, the policy had ceased to exist as they had previously written to the plaintiffs cancelling the policy. The letter stated was never received by the plaintiffs as there was no post office at Buloh Kasap which was a small village of some 27 houses. The nearest post office was at Segamat and the daily delivery from Segamat did not extend to Buloh Kasap. The practice at Segamat was to send a postman to Buloh Kasap only when the amount of correspondence justified a special journey. Now the letter of 27th March, which was addressed to the plaintiffs at Buloh Kasap, was kept at Segamat, according to the practice stated above, until the 2nd April when the postman took it to Buloh Kasap. As the plaintiffs' premises

However, where it is not specified, an acceptance can be made in a usual and reasonable manner. In the case of Henthorn v Fraser , the defendant and the claimant were situated at Liverpool and Birkenhead respectively. The defendant called at the office of the claimant in order to negotiate the purchase of some houses. The defendant handed the claimant a note giving him the option to purchase some houses within 14 days. On the next day, the defendant withdrew the offer by post, but this withdrawal did not reach the claimant until 5 P.M. Meanwhile, the claimant responded by post with an unconditional acceptance of the offer, which was delivered to the defendant after its office had closed. The letter was opened by the defendant the next