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].