contract as the defendant was free to withdraw the offer at anytime before acceptance by the °fierce, and this was the despite the defendants promise, the court said. The offer did not have to remain open for six weeks.
Now, although the offeror can withdraw the offer, the withdrawal must be communicated to the offeree. It Is sufficient for the offeror to simply charigin. anrrtnit e offirie and ticesori y, for that proposItIonl,the case of Bern and Vantanovan an 1880 case. In that case, the court said. 1CatsiriiPly posting, litteirevoking the offer will not amount to an effective communication to the offeree. Now, as we will discuss and as we will see when we go through acceptance and the postal rule. This runs counter to the position in acceptance that communication of acceptance Is deemed, the minute it is posted. That is not the case In the revocation of an offer, the offeree must know of the revocation. Although they offeree must know about the withdrawal of an offer, the offeree does not have to be notified off the withdrawal of the of the offer by the offeror in person And the case for that, of course, is Dickinson and Dodds and m Dickinson 8‘ Dodds which is an 1876 case, the plaintiffs was given the option to buy certain land from the defendant for E800 With the defendant promising that the offer would remain open for two days. However, the defendants sold the land to someone else before the time, and the plentiful learnt of this later by chance via a third party. The plaintiff then proceeded to contact the defendant to inform him of his acceptance of the offer before the deadline of the time agreed At the Court of Appeal said that the plaintiffs action for specific performance must fall. It had to fall as there was no contract between the parties. Although we have already seen at a promise to keep an of open for a specific period of time will not necessarily be binding on the offeror. The question here is whether or not. The withdrawal of the offer was effectively communicated to the offeree. The court said emphatically that it did The main point coming out of Dickinson, is that the third party must be a reliable third Par,. So Please be careful of examiners who tell you that the offeree is 10 year old nephew Or is Practical Joker friend told him that the offer was revoked
The idea is that the third party must be reliable. Now an offer may also be terminated. By the offeree rejecting the offer. If he rejects it, then he cannot simply change his mind and accept it later on. Equally, if he makes a counteroffer, what that means is that he changes the term of what was originally being offered That will amount to a rejection of the offer, and the case of Hayden Wrench Is the authority for that proposition.
However, if the offeree does not make a counteroffer but is simply seeking further information from the offeror that will not amount to a rejection. And the authority, of course, is the case of Stephenson 8 McLean. whereas counteroffer will reject the offer. A request for nformation won’t. And what we will see when we discuss acceptance Ina later lecture. Is that where a party simply seeks to request information. He will not have killed off the offer, but a counteroffer will have killed of the offer An offer may also come to an end due to the lapse of time. So, if I say to you that I will sell you my pen But you must respond by next Tuesday. You cannot seek to accept next ‘Thursday. The problem. however, If that sometimes the time of acceptance has not been made clear. And this is what occurs in exam questions as well and so where the offeror does not specify a time limit For acceptance, the offer will lapse unless It Is accepted within a reasonable time. What amounts to a reasonable time will depend on the circumstances of the case and must take account of the subject matter of the offer before example in Ramsgate, Victoria Hotel and Monleflore in 1866. It was held at an offer to buy Share, Miich was made In hide, Could not be