This analysis of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Steel [1983], essential for law students, explores contract formation through instantaneous communication across international borders.

  • In the case of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Steel [1983] 2 AC 34, contract formation was explored in the context of instantaneous communication and the presiding jurisdiction where the sellers were based in a different country.

Facts of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Steel [1983] 2 AC 34

  • The C buyers, Brinkibon Ltd, were a company based in London, England
  • The D sellers, Stahag Steel, were based in Vienna, Austria
  • The Cs had sent their acceptance to the Ds offer by telex communication
  • Later, the Cs wanted to sue the Ds for breach of contract
  • The High Court were unsure on the scope of their jurisdiction regarding a party residing outside of the country and the Court of Appeal believed it be outside the scope of English law, so the case was taken to the House of Lords

Issues in Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Steel [1983] 2 AC 34

  • A contract was made between the parties, but was this formed in England and so English law could deal with the alleged breach, or would Austrian law have to deal with it?
  • Having accepted using telex, when was the contract formed?

Held by the House of Lords

  • Appeal dismissed. The contract was formed in Austria where the acceptance was received – therefore the presiding law was Austrian law, and the High Court had no jurisdiction

Lord Wilberforce

For contracts, Lord Wilberforce stated the general rule

  • “a contract is formed when acceptance of an offer is communicated by the offeree to the offeror. And if it is necessary to determine where a contract is formed (as to which I have already commented) it appears logical that this should be at the place where acceptance is communicated to the offeror.” [41]

Telex: instantaneous or non-instantaneous communication?

Citing Entores again, Lord Wilberforce stated that if the acceptance formed the contract this would be under Austrian jurisdiction

  • “The present case is, as Entores Ltd. v. Miles Far East Corporation [1955] 2 Q.B. 327 itself, the simple case of instantaneous communication between principals, and, in accordance with the general rule, involves that the contract (if any) was made when and where the acceptance was received. This was on May 4, 1979, in Vienna.” [42]

Lord Wilberforce denied jurisdiction would be under English law after considering the possibility that the contract was formed upon the offer made from Vienna and acceptance by conduct in England:

  • “the letter of credit was not opened in the United Kingdom. Instructions were indeed given by the appellants to their bank in the United Kingdom to open it, and that bank gave instructions on May 4, 1979, to their correspondent in Vienna, but these steps were between the appellants and their agents only. They could not amount, in my opinion, to an acceptance of the offer of May 3, 1979. This took place, if at all, when the correspondent bank in Vienna notified the respondents: this they did in Vienna.” [42]

Significance of the Case on the Development of the Law

Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Steel [1983] is a landmark case that significantly refined the understanding of where and when a contract is formed in the context of cross-border electronic communications. Its implications are evidenced by its relationship with several pivotal cases:

  1. Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation [1955]: Entores established the rule that acceptance in contract law via instantaneous communication occurs where it is received. Brinkibon applied and reaffirmed this principle, determining that the contract was formed in Austria, not where the acceptance was sent from.
  2. The Brimnes [1975]: This case further clarified the moment of contract formation by determining that the communication of withdrawal of a contract becomes effective when it could have been read by the receiver under normal circumstances. Brinkibon complements this by handling the international aspect and instantaneous nature of telex communication.
  3. Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010]: This case examined email communications for contract terms, applying the principles from Brinkibon to modern digital communications, which shows the enduring relevance of the Brinkibon ruling in today’s digital age.

Exam Questions and Answers

Below you will find answers to questions that are most commonly asked based on this case.

What are the implications of Brinkibon for contracts made via newer forms of communication like social media and instant messaging?

The principles from Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Steel [1983] are applicable to contracts formed via modern communication technologies like social media and instant messaging. Following the reasoning in Brinkibon, acceptance of contract terms sent via these platforms is considered effective when received. However, exact timings can be contentious due to varying timestamps and platform notifications. UK courts continue to adapt these principles to new technologies, ensuring the law remains relevant as seen in Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd [2012], which recognized contract formation through email exchanges.

How does Brinkibon influence the drafting of terms and conditions in international contracts to manage jurisdiction issues?

Brinkibon influences international contract drafting by emphasizing the importance of specifying the jurisdiction and governing law within the terms and conditions. Legal practitioners often include explicit jurisdiction clauses to avoid disputes about where a contract was formed and which country’s laws apply, mirroring the practical outcomes of Brinkibon. This practice helps manage legal risks in cross-border dealings and ensures clarity in the event of disputes.

What are the limitations of the Brinkibon ruling in handling disputes arising from asynchronous communications, such as email?

The Brinkibon ruling, while foundational, has limitations in addressing asynchronous communications like email, where the time of receipt can be ambiguous. The case law since Brinkibon, including Thomas v BPE Solicitors [2010], attempts to address these ambiguities by focusing on when the message is actually read or could reasonably be expected to be read. However, this can create uncertainties in pinpointing the exact moment of contract formation, leading to potential disputes in determining the applicable jurisdiction and governing law.

Exclusive Industry Scoop

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.