Share allotment acceptance and acquiescence prevented lapse of offer, leaving a concluded contract in place.

An offer for shares was held not to have lapsed where letters of acceptance and allotment were posted, share certificates were later sent and received, and the applicants retained them without objection. On those facts, acceptance was treated as duly communicated and a concluded contract arose. The delay in allotment was not regarded as unreasonable in the circumstances, and the applicants' silence and retention of the certificates amounted to acquiescence. The proposal was therefore not treated as revoked by lapse of time, and contractual liability on the share allotment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants' offer for shares had lapsed by reason of delay in allotment and communication of acceptance, so as to prevent a concluded contract from arising.

Analysis: The applications for shares were followed by letters of acceptance and allotment said to have been posted by the company, and the share certificates were subsequently sent and received. On these facts, the acceptance was treated as duly communicated, resulting in a concluded contract. The delay in allotment was not treated as unreasonable in the circumstances, especially because the applicants had notice of the allotment, received the share certificates, retained them, and raised no objection until demand was made. Their conduct amounted to acquiescence, and the proposal could not be said to have been revoked merely by lapse of time under the contract law principle governing revocation of offers.

Conclusion: The contention that the offer had lapsed was rejected, and the contractual liability on the share allotment was upheld against the petitioners.

---