Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Indian Contract Act, 1872 > Termination of Offer
The party who makes the offer is known as the offeror, and the party who accepts the offer is known as the offeree. Termination of offer is where the offer is terminated before the other side(offeree) has the opportunity to accept or reject it. There are a number of ways for an offer to be terminated. An offer is terminated in the following circumstances:
- Revocation
- Rejection
- Lapse of time
- Conditional Offer
- Operation of law
- Death
- Acceptance
- Illegality
Termination of Offer by Revocation:
The word ‘revocation’ means “taking back”. The Indian Contract Act lays out the rules of revocation of an offer in Section 5. It says the offer may be revoked anytime before the communication of the acceptance is complete against the proposer/offeror. Once the acceptance is communicated to the proposer, revocation of the offer is not possible. An offer can be revoked at any time before acceptance takes place. However, the revocation must be communicated effectively directly or indirectly to the offeree before acceptance.
In Payne v Cave, (1789) 3 TR 148 case, the claimant put his goods up for sale at a public auction. The defendant made the highest bid, but then changed his mind. He purported to withdraw the bid before the auctioneer’s hammer fell. The claimant argued that there was a completed contract and the defendant had to pay for the goods. The Court held in favour of the defendant. The defendant’s bid was an offer, which had been withdrawn before it was accepted. As such, there was no contract.
In Byrne v Van Tien hoven, [1880] 5 CPD 344 case, Van Tien hoven offered to sell goods to Byrne by letter dated 1st October. Byrne received the letter on 11th October and telegraphed an acceptance on the same day. On 8th October Van Tien hoven posted a letter revoking the offer. This letter was received by Byrne on 20th October. Van Tien hoven refused to go through with the sale. The Court held that to be effective revocation must be communicated. Where post is used for acceptance, acceptance occurs when and where sent (provided it is contemplated as a means of acceptance) (the ‘postal rule’). However, this rule does not apply in relation to revocation of offers – if post is used for revocation, communication is only effective if and when it is received by the offeree. In this case receipt of the revocation occurred after acceptance with the result that there was a contract formed in this case.
Termination of Offer by Rejection:
The refusal of an offer by the offeree is called rejection. An offer is terminated when the offeree communicates his rejection to the offeror. Once an offer has been rejected, it cannot subsequently be accepted by the offeree. A counter-offer ranks as a rejection, but a mere inquiry as to the possibility of varying some term does not.
In Hyde v. Wrench, (1840) 49 ER 132 case, the defendant(offeror) offered to sell his farm for £1000 but the Plaintiff(offeree) offered him £950 and subsequently rejected the offer. So, the offeree filed the case as the offeror was bind by the contract but it was held that as soon as offeree put the condition the first offer becomes void which means that the offeror is not bounded by the contract as the original offer was rejected by the offeree.
In Stevenson, Jacques v McLean, (1880) 5 QBD 346 case, the defendant possessed several warrants for iron. He wrote the claimant in London asking them if they could find him a buyer. After negotiations, the defendant stated that 40s per ton was the lowest price he was willing to sell for. He told the claimant that this offer was open until the following Monday. The claimants sent a telegram on Monday morning asking if the defendant agreed to delivery over two months, and if not, how long he could give. The defendant did not respond, and sold the warrants to a third-party later that day. Before he informed the claimant of this, they sent another telegram in the afternoon accepting the defendant’s offer. The claimant sued the defendant for damages for non-delivery of the iron. The defendant argued that the claimant’s first telegram was a counter-offer, and therefore that his original offer had been revoked. The Court held in favour of the claimant. The first telegram was merely an inquiry for information, not a counter-offer. While the defendant could have revoked his offer at any time on Monday, he failed to do so before the offer was accepted. There was therefore a completed contract between the parties. A mere inquiry would not be considered as rejection.
Termination of Offer by Lapse of Time:
Where in a contract, a fixed time has been prescribed to the offeree to communicate the acceptance, the offeree is bound to accept the offer within the fixed time so prescribed because after the expiry of the fixed time the offer lapses. The validity of the offer by the offeree would not be affected if the letter of acceptance so posted within the stipulated time reaches the offeror after the completion of the specified time (Postal Rule). Where there is no express time limit, an offer is normally open only for a reasonable time. The length for a reasonable time will depend on the circumstances of the case with respect to offers involving other types of subject matter, definition of a reasonable time depends upon the demand for the subject matters and upon the volatility of its price.
In Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore, case, the defendant, Montefiore wanted to buy shares in the complainant’s hotel (Ramsgate Victoria Hotel). He communicated his offer to the complainant that he wanted to buy shares in the hotel at a certain price. After six months, the complainant accepted the offer. However, by this time, the value of shares had gone down and Mr. Montefiore was no longer interested in buying shares. The defendant did not formally revoke the offer, but he did not proceed with the sale. The Complainant brought an action against the defendant for specific performance of contract. The Court passed an order in favour of the defendant. The Court held the company’s claim for specific performance was not successful because the Company had sufficient time to accept the defendant’s offer. Six months was sufficient time to accept an offer. The company accepted the offer after six months so, it was no longer valid due to expiry / lapses of a reasonable period of time. The Court was of the view that an offer must be accepted within the prescribed time and if a time is not prescribed, then it must be accepted within a reasonable period of time.
In Dickinson v Dodds, case, on 10th June Dodds offered to sell house to Dickinson, stating: this offer to remain open until 9.00am on 12th June. Dickinson decided to accept on 11th June but did not advise Dodds immediately. Later on the 11th, Dickinson was informed by a third party that Dodds had sold to someone else. Dickinson then purported to accept the offer. Dodds replied that it was too late – the property had already been sold. The Court held that no particular form of revocation is required. All that is required is that the offeror in some way conveys (directly or indirectly) to the offeree that s/he had changed his or her mind about the offer. There was no question that this had occurred here – Dickinson knew Dodds was no longer prepared to sell before purporting to accept. The promise to keep the offer open was not binding because it was not supported by consideration.
Termination of Offer by Condition:
An offer which expressly provides that it is to terminate on the occurrence of some condition cannot be accepted after that condition has occurred; and such a provision may also be implied. In other words, termination of an offer may also occur due to a condition not being met.
In Financings Ltd v Stimson, [1962] 3 All ER 386 case, the parties entered into a hire-purchase agreement for a car. The claimant, a finance company, gave the dealer authority to draw up the agreement on its behalf. That agreement stated that it would only be binding on the claimant once the claimant had signed and accepted it. Two days later, before the claimant signed the agreement, the defendant informed the dealer that he no longer wanted to go through with the agreement. The night before the claimant signed the agreement, the car was stolen from the dealer. By the time the car was found, it had been damaged. The claimant sued the defendant for the price of the car, minus a deduction for the value of the damage. The defendant then argued that he was not obliged to pay, because he had revoked his offer before the claimant signed the agreement. The Court of Appeal held in favour of the defendant. The dealer acted as the claimant’s agent. In that capacity, he had ostensible authority to accept the defendant’s revocation of the offer. Since the claimant had to sign the contract to accept the offer, and they had not done so before the offer was revoked. Therefore, there was no contract. Additionally, the Court held that the offer was conditional on the car being in the condition it was when the offer was made. As such, even if the offer had not already been revoked, it was no longer capable of being accepted once the car was damaged.
Termination of Offer by Operation of Law
If there is no option contract, death or incapacitation of either party prior to acceptance will terminate the offer. It does not need to be communicated to the other party either. Death and incapacity do not terminate irrevocable offers. If the laws change prior to acceptance of the offer, the law will terminate the offer because it would become a void contract. In the event that the subject matter of the offer is destroyed prior to acceptance, this constitutes termination of the offer as well.
Termination of Offer by Death or Mental Incapacity:
The right to accept an ordinary offer is not transferable. Thus, the death of either the offeror or the offeree will cause termination of the offer. The unaccepted offer of a deceased person cannot be converted into a contract binding upon his estate.
In Raja of Bobbili v. A. Suryanarayana Rao, (1919) 42 Mad 776 case, an auction sale was held by the Court, the bid was subject to its sanction or acceptance by the Court but before the Court could accept it, the bidder died and it was held that on the death of the bidder his bid stood revoked.
In Reynolds v Atherton, (1922) 127 LT 189 case, the claimant were a firm of cotton brokers. They acted under a brokerage contract with the defendant, a cotton spinning company. In order to renew their contract, the claimant purchased various shares in the defendant. In 1911, the claimant wrote the company a letter addressed to the directors. It stated that the claimants were willing to transfer their shares, while they remained the defendant’s broker. The defendant acknowledged the letter but did not respond until 1918. By that time, the shares had risen considerably in value and the composition of the defendant’s board of directors had changed. Three directors had also died. The defendant sent a letter purporting to accept the claimant’s offer on behalf of the directors who had run the company in 1911 (including the estates of those who had died). The claimant sought a declaration that there was no enforceable contract. The House of Lords held in favour of the claimant. The claimant had made their offer to the board of directors as an entity, whose composition might change. They had not made the offer to the particular directors who ran the company in 1911. The defendant’s letter had therefore not properly accepted the offer.
Termination of Offer by Acceptance:
Once the offer was accepted by the offeree, the contract is formed and brought the offer to an end. It can be made either orally, in writing, or by the implication of conduct when they are received by the offeror.
In Felthouse v Bindley, (1862) EWHC CP J35 case, the complainant, Paul Felthouse, had a conversation with his nephew, John Felthouse, about buying his horse. After their discussion, the uncle replied by letter stating that if he didn’t hear anymore from his nephew concerning the horse, he would consider acceptance of the order done and he would own the horse. His nephew did not reply to this letter and was busy at auctions. The defendant, Mr Bindley, ran the auctions and the nephew advised him not to sell the horse. However, by accident he ended up selling the horse to someone else. The Court held that there was no contract for the horse between the complainant and his nephew. There had not been an acceptance of the offer; silence did not amount to acceptance and an obligation cannot be imposed by another. Any acceptance of an offer must be communicated clearly. Although the nephew had intended to sell the horse to the complainant and showed this interest, there was no contract of sale. Thus, the nephew’s failure to respond to the complainant did not amount to an acceptance of his offer.
Illegality:
Finally, a change in the law which makes a potential contract illegal will terminate an offer, since courts will not enforce an illegal contract.
Conclusion:
Termination of an offer is not the same as contract termination. In the case of termination of an offer, the contract was not fully formed. Termination of an offer ends the power of the offeror to perform. A termination of offer can only be terminated prior to the offeree accepting it. It can happen by one of the party’s actions or operation of law.