Denning LJ found that the regular postal rule did not apply for instantaneous means of communications such as a telex.

The contract was not fulfilled and so Entores attempted to sue the owner of the Dutch company for damages.

The controlling company, Entores, was based in the UK, and under English law Entores could only bring the action in the UK (serve notice of writ outside the jurisdiction) if it could prove that the contract was formed within the jurisdiction, i.e. in London rather than Amsterdam.

He said that the postal rule could not apply to instantaneous communications, such as telephone or telex: if a phoneline "went dead" just before the offeree said "yes", it would be absurd to assume that the contract was formed - the parties would have to call each other back.

there was a completed contract by which the defendants agreed to supply 100 tons of cathodes at a price of £239 10s.

Let me first consider a case where two people make a contract by word of mouth in the presence of one another.

Suppose, for instance, that I shout an offer to a man across a river or a courtyard but I do not hear his reply because it is drowned by an aircraft flying overhead.

If he wishes to make a contract, he must wait till the aircraft is gone and then shout back his acceptance so that I can hear what he says.

Suppose, for instance, that I make an offer to a man by telephone and, in the middle of his reply, the line goes "dead" so that I do not hear his words of acceptance.

If the line goes dead in the middle of the sentence of acceptance, the teleprinter motor will stop.

This may happen if the listener on the telephone does not catch the words of acceptance, but nevertheless does not trouble to ask for them to be repeated: or the ink on the teleprinter fails at the receiving end, but the clerk does not ask for the message to be repeated: so that the man who sends an acceptance reasonably believes that his message has been received.

But if there should be a case where the offeror without any fault on his part does not receive the message of acceptance - yet the sender of it reasonably believes it has got home when it has not - then I think there is no contract.

Applying the principles which I have stated, I think that the contract in this case was made in London where the acceptance was received.

U.K./ Continental main ports: prompt shipment from a Japanese port after receipt of export licence: payment by irrevocable and transferable letter of credit to be opened in favour of Miles Far East Corporation with a first class Tokyo Bank.

Both the original contract and ensuing variations were made in England and leave can properly be given for service out of the jurisdiction.

I am inclined to think also that the contract is by implication to be governed by English law, because England is the place with which it has the closest connection.