PROSPECTUS AND ALLOTMENT 57
the contract is complete as soon as the letter of allotment is
posted, even though it is never received [Household Insurance
Co. v. Grant (1879), 4 Ex. D. 216]. Posting means putting
the letter under the control of a postal official authorised to
receive it [London and Northern Bank, ex parte Jones (1900),
1 Ch. 220]. But to make a complete contract the allotment
must correspond with the application; e.g. if A applies for
100 shares, and 50 only are allotted to him, he is not bound
to take them, unless the application contained such words as
‘or such less number as may be allotted to me’ [ex parte
Roberts (1852), 1 Drew, 204]. No fresh condition can be
imposed by the allotment. If it is complicated by the ad-
dition of a new term or condition there will be no contract
[Jackson v. Turquand (1869), L.R. 4 H.L. 305].

Shares should never be allotted to an infant, for he can
afterwards repudiate the contract, and obtain. repayment
of the money paid for them, and have his name removed from
the register; but he cannot recover money already paid for the
shares unless there has been a total failure of consideration,
i.e. unless it can be shown that the shares could not have
been sold [Steinberg v. Scala (Leeds) (1923), 39 T.L.R. 542,
overruling Hamilton v. Vaughan-Sherrin Electrical Co. (1894),
3 Ch. 589]. But if he is registered and acts as holder of the
shares after attaining his majority [Lumsden’s Case (1868),
4 Ch. App. 31], or does not repudiate within a reasonable time
[Yeoland Consols (1888), 58 L.T. 922], he will be liable.
Knowingly to allot to an infant is a misfeasance [ex parte
Wilson (1873), 8 Ch. App. 45].