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 The defendant’s bid was an offer, which had been withdrawn before it was accepted.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.

For More Topic in Contract Law Click Here

For More on Civil Laws Click Here

The post Termination of Offer appeared first on The Fact Factor.

A proposal is main ingredient of a valid contract. The term “proposal” of the Indian Contract Act is synonymous to the term “Offer” in English law. Section 2(a)of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines proposal as “when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal”. The person making proposal/offer is called the proposer/offeror and the person to which the proposal is made is called propose or offeree. In this article, we shall discuss types of offer. Section 9 talks of an express offer, express acceptance, implied offer, and implied acceptance. in this article, we shall study types of an offer.\

Section 9 in The Indian Contract Act, 18729. Promises, express and implied:

In so far as the proposal or acceptance of any promise is made in words, the promise is said to be express. In so far as such proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied. —In so far as the proposal or acceptance of any promise is made in words, the promise is said to be express. In so far as such proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied.

Types of an Offer:

Express Offer:

When the offer is made by express communication then the offer is said to be an express offer. The express offer can be made face to face or via telephone. The express offer in written format can be made via text messages, advertisements, letters or e-mail.

A written application by a candidate for a post of manager in a written form is an express offer. Confirmation of his appointment with the explanation of terms of employment by the vice president of a company who is authorized to do so by telephone is also an express offer.\

Implied Offer:

when the offer is not communicated expressly but communicated by conduct or by the circumstances of the case, then offer is called an implied offer.

When we are waiting for a bus to go to a certain place, the bus which can take us to the place where we desire to go arrives and halts at the bus stop. We enter the bus and pay requisite fair. A ticket is given to us. When destination comes the bus halts at the stop and we board down the bus.. By entering the bus we accept the offer. Thus acceptance is also by conduct. Such offers are implied offers.

In Uptron Rural District Council v. Powell, 1942 1 All ER 220 case, the defendant has asked the plaintiff to do the services as he thought they will do it for free. But as the service was not entitled to a free service zone the plaintiff demanded money for their services. It was held that the defendant desired and requested Upton’s services, according to the court, and they were given. As a result, the services were deemed to be delivered based on an implied commitment to pay.

Special or Specific Offer:

Special offer means an offer made to (a) a particular person or (b) a group of person. It can be accepted only by that person to whom it is made. communication of acceptance is necessary in case of a specific offer.

A offers to buy a car from B for ₹10 Lakh. Thus, a specific offer is made to a specific person, and only B can accept the offer. Communication from B for acceptance or rejection is necessary.

It is bilateral offer. In this type of offer, acceptance must be communicated, and all parties involved promise to provide some consideration to others.

In Boulton v. Jones, (1857) 2H and N564 case, the defendant i.e. Jones sent a written order for goods to a shop which is owned by Brocklehurst and which was addressed to him by name. Unknown to the defendant, Brocklehurst had earlier that day sold and transferred his business to Boulton. But Boulton fulfilled the order and delivered the goods to the defendant without notifying him that he had taken over the business. The defendant accepted the goods and consumed them in the belief that they had been supplied by Brocklehurst. When he received Boulton’s invoice he refused to pay it claiming that he had intended to deal with Brocklehurst personally, since he had dealt with them previously and had a set-off on which he had intended to rely, for which the plaintiff sued him. The court held that the defendant i.e. Jones was not liable for the price. When a Contract is made for the identity of the person is important to the Contract. Hence, there was no Contract. Pollock said that the rule of law is clear, that if you propose to make a contract with A, then B cannot substitute himself for A without your consent and to your disadvantage, securing to himself all the benefit of the contract. 

General Offer:

General offer means an offer which is made to the public in general. A General offer can be accepted by anyone. If offeree fulfills the terms and conditions which are given in offer then offer is accepted. Communication of acceptance is not necessary in the case of a general offer.

General offer is unilateral offer. For instance, advertisements can be considered unilateral offers. Display of goods by a vendor can also be a unilateral offer as any individual can choose to buy a product or service from a shopkeeper which results in a contract.  In this case, the offeror does not wait for communication of acceptance.

In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1893 case the defendant company advertised that a reward would be given to any person who would suffer from influenza after using the medicine (Smoke balls) made by the company according to the printed directions. One lady, Mrs, Carlill (the plaintiff), purchased and used the medicine according to the printed directions of the company but suffered from influenza, She filed a suit to recover the reward. The defendant’s contention was that the plaintiff has not accepted the offer by communicated consent to the offer. The court held that there was a contract as she had accepted a general offer by using the medicine in the prescribed manner. Still, she suffered from influenza, hence she is liable for getting the reward from the company.

Cross Offer:

When two parties exchange identical offers in ignorance at the time of
each other’s offer the offer’s are called cross offer. Two cross offer does not constitute a contract. In the cross offer, the offers are made by the same parties to one another, each party not knowing about the offer made by the other party.  The terms and conditions contained in cross offers are the same. Note that in this case, both are offeror and same time offerree. There is no specific acceptance. Hence it cannot become an agreement. In such cases, a contract comes into existence when any of the
parties, accept the cross offer made by the other party.

Example: A offers by a letter to sell 100 cycles at ₹1,000 per cycle. On the same day, without knowledge B also writes to A offering to buy 100 cycles at ₹1,000 per cycle. In both, the cases offer is there but another main ingredient acceptance of the agreement is missing. If A accepts offer of B then it leads to a contract.

In Tinn v. Hoffman & Co., (1873) 29 LT 271 case, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff offering to sell a certain quantity of iron at a certain price. On the same day without knowledge the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that he want to buy the same quantity of iron at the same price. The letters crossed in the Post. The plaintiff contended that there was a concluded contract. But the Court held that the defendant were not liable by the simultaneous offers, each made in ignorance of the other. Blackburn J. said “when contract is made between two parties, there is a promise by one in consideration of the promise made by the other, there are two assenting mind, the parties agreeing in opinion and one having promises in consideration of the promise made by the other- there is exchange of promise. But I do not think exchanging offers would , upon the principle, be at all the same thing….. The promise or offer made on each side in ignorance of the promise or offer made on the other side, neither of them can be construed as an acceptance of the other.”

Counter Offer:

When the offeree gives a qualified acceptance of the offer subject to
modified and variations in the terms of the original offer, then the offer made by the original offeree is called counter-offer. The counter-offer amounts to the rejection of the original offer.

By the counter-offer following legal effects come into existence (a) Rejection of original offer, (b) The original offer lapses, and (c) A counter offer result is a new offer.

Example: A offered to sell his old car to B for ₹ 1,00,000. B replied, “I am ready to pay ₹ 90.000”. On A’s refusal to sell at this price, B agreed to pay ₹1,00,0000. Now A is not bound to sell his car to B at ₹ 1,00,000. Initial offer to sell the car for ₹ 1,00,000 was made by A. B rejected the offer by giving a counter-offer to buy the car at ₹ 90,000. A refused this counter-offer. Now again B is giving a new offer to A to buy the car at ₹ 10,000. Thus as offeree, he has the right to accept or reject the new offer by B. Note that a counter-offer amounts to a rejection of the original offer.

In Harvey v.  Facey, ((1893) A. C. 552) case the plaintiffs telegraphed to the defendants, writing, “Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price”. The defendants replied, also by a telegram, “Lowest price for Pen, £ 900”. The plaintiffs immediately sent their last telegram stating, “We agree to buy Pen for £ 900 asked by you”. The defendants, however, refused to sell the plot of land at that price. The court held that the defendants gave only the lowest price and did not express their willingness to sell the plot of the land. The offer was made by the plaintiff in his last telegram to the defendant which was never accepted by the defendant.

 In Philip & Co. v. Knoblanch ((1907) S. C. 994) case A merchant (the plaintiff) wrote to a firm of oil millers (the defendant), “I am offering today plate linseed for January-February shipment to Litth and have pleasure in quoting you 100 tons at usual plate terms. I shall glad to hear if you will buy and await reply”. The oil miller telegraphed the next day: “Accept”, and confirmed it by letter. It was held that the letter by the plaintiff has all the characteristics of a valid offer and contract was concluded by the defendant by the telegram.

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.

Standing or Open or Continuous Offer:

An offer is allowed to remain open for acceptance over a period of time is known as standing, open or continually offer.

Example: A contract for the supply of goods for a big canteen is a kind of standing offer. In such a case we specify terms, goods to be supplied, the quantity of each good, the period of supply of goods in the contract once. Then we do not repeat our offer daily and the supplier supplies the goods to us periodically. Such types of offer are called Standing Offer. They are open for a period of the contract.

In Perclval Ltd. v. London County Council Asylums and Mental deficiency Committee, (1918) 87 LJKB 677 case, the plaintiffs advertised for tenders for the supply of stores. The defendant made a tender to the effect that he undertook to supply the company for twelve months with such quantities of special articles as the company may order from time to time. The Company, by a letter accepted the tender and subsequently gave various orders which were executed by the defendant. Ultimately the Company gave an order for goods within the schedule, which the defendant refused to supply. The Court held that the Tender was a standing offer that was to be converted into a series of contracts by the subsequent acts of the company and that an order prevented pro tanto the possibility of revocation, hence the company succeeded in an action for breach of contract. 

In Bangal Coal Co. Ltd. v. Homee Wadia & Co. (1899) L Bom. 97 case the defendants entered into a contract to supply coal as and when required for a period of twelve months at an agreed rate. The plaintiff placed certain orders, and the defendants supplied the coal but before 12 months have lapsed, the defendants withdraw their offer. The plaintiff then sued the defendants for breach of contract. Dismissing the suit the Court held that there was no contract at all therefore, there is no question of breach of contract. The Court point out that it was only standing offer and contract comes into existence when acceptance is made by placing an order, before this step either party can withdraw, but once order is placed they cannot revoked.

In Union of India v. Madala Thathiah, (1964) 3, S.C.R. 774 case, the Supreme Court of India held that the standing offer may be revoked at any time, provided that it has not accepted in the legal sense, and acceptance in legal sense is complete as a requisition or a definite quantity of goods is made. Each requisition by offeree is an individual act of acceptance which creates a separate contract.

Conclusion:

The Indian Contract act doesn’t specifically mention the different types of offers. It talks of express and implied offers only. But as ours is a common law country, we develop law from the decisions held by Indian and British courts. As an offer is the first step in the formulation of a contract, it is essential to distinguish what type of offer has been made by the offeror, as different types of offers have different types of legal rules being applied to them.

For More Topic in Contract Law Click Here

For More on Civil Laws Click Here

The post Types of an Offer appeared first on The Fact Factor.