Where would Boulton v Jones (1857) 2 H & N 564 fit in the red branch or columns, under the Minority's decision? The author mentioned it on the left in green, but not on the right in red.
Unquestionably not Column 3, because Boulton wasn't dealing face to face.
The courts take a different approach in relation to written contracts. In Boulton v Jones (1857) Jones posted a written order for a hosepipe to Brocklehurst (with whom he had a set-off arrangement and who would not therefore require payment), but, unknown to Jones, Brocklehurst had just transferred his business to Boulton, his former foreman. The court held that there was no contract between Boulton and Jones because Boulton must have known that Jones only wanted to contract with Brocklehurst, the person to whom he sent his order and with whom he had the set-off [I don't replicate book's definition.] arrangement.
This case can be seen as an application of the objective approach to offer and acceptance: a reasonable person in Boulton’s shoes would have realized that the offer was addressed to Brocklehurst and not to himself, and it is clear that one cannot accept an offer if it is addressed to another. This is the basis on which the case was dismissed. Pollock CB said: ‘if you propose to make a contract with A, then B cannot substitute himself for A without your consent.’