Bishop v. Eaton

From Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Jump to navigationJump to search

Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496, 37 N.E. 665, (1894).

Facts: Defendant asked Plaintiff to loan money to Defendant's brother, and Defendant would be sure Plaintiff would be repaid. Notice of the load and subsequent non-payment was sent by mail to Defendant but never received, so Defendant never knew that his request had been accepted.

Issue: Was the Plaintiff required to inform the Defendant that he has performed according to the initial offer, when performance was not otherwise obvious?

Holding: Yes, notice is required within a reasonable amount of time. However, Plaintiff did post notice of acceptance--even though that letter never arrived, it was sufficient.


  • Acceptance of a unilateral contract must have both performance and notice of acceptance.
  • Notice is properly sent by mail.
    • similar to the Mailbox Rule (effective upon posting).