Tag: Offer and acceptance

Smythe v Thomas [2007]: Can You Back Out After Selling on eBay?

Given below is a case brief of Peter Smythe v Vincent Thomas [2007] NSWSC 844. It deals with questions such as whether online auctions (like eBay) can create real, enforceable contracts.

  • Citations: [2007] NSWSC 844; (2007) 71 NSWLR 537; [2008] Aust Contract Reports 90-271
  • Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales – Equity Division
  • The learned Judge: Justice Rein AJ
  • Judgment Date: 3 August 2007
  • Parties: Plaintiff: Peter Smythe (buyer on eBay); Defendant: Vincent Thomas (seller of aircraft)

Case Background: Smythe v Thomas

An aircraft owner (Thomas) listed his vintage Wirraway warbird on eBay with a minimum bid of $150,000. The buyer (Smythe) called him before bidding and they discussed details like the aircraft’s condition, airworthiness, and payment of a $10,000 deposit within 7 days, with the balance timing being negotiable. Smythe later bid $150,000 on eBay, became the highest bidder, and received a “You won” email from eBay.

After the auction ended, Thomas refused to sell, saying he would not accept only $150,000 and claimed there was no binding contract. Smythe sued, arguing that the eBay process plus their earlier phone discussion created a binding contract of sale and sought specific performance (i.e., that the court force the sale to go through).

Court’s Decision in Smythe v Thomas

The Court held that:

1. An eBay “online auction” is still an auction in law, and the close of bidding is equivalent to the fall of the hammer.

2. By listing with a minimum bid and allowing the auction to run, Thomas offered to sell to the highest bidder who met the conditions (like who bid at least $150,000, within the timeframe, etc).

3. When Smythe’s bid met the minimum and was highest at the close, a binding contract was formed between Smythe and Thomas.

4. The earlier phone statements about airworthiness and the aircraft being ready to fly, and the deposit arrangement, were treated as contractual terms (promissory, not mere puff).

5. The fact that the exact time for paying the balance was “negotiable” did not make the contract incomplete; the law implies payment within a reasonable time.

6. Because the aircraft was unique and rare, specific performance was granted – Thomas was ordered to complete the sale.

Why This Case Is Important

  • It confirms that eBay auctions can create legally enforceable contracts. Winning an eBay auction for a unique item can legally bind the seller to complete the sale—just like a traditional auction.
  • It shows that online transactions are treated seriously under commercial law.
  • It underscores that unique goods may justify specific performance.
  • It warns sellers: listing online with a reserve can legally bind you. Sellers can’t back out just because they don’t like the final price.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2007/844.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Le Mans Grand Prix Circuits Pty Ltd v Iliadis [1998]: Legal Insights
R v Clarke (1927): Can Motive Defeat a Reward Claim?

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Williams v Carwardine (1833): Contract Law on Reward Offers

Williams v Carwardine (1833) is one of the oldest cases on unilateral offers and motive. Here is a structured summary of the case along with its key details.

  • Citation: Williams v Carwardine [1833] EWHC KB J44, 172 ER 1101, (1833) 5 Car & P 566 (often reported as (1833) 4 B & Ad 621; 110 ER 590)
  • Court: England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division)-Hereford Assizes
  • Date: 22 March 1833
  • Judge: Parke J
  • Area of Law: Unilateral Contracts, Reward Offers, Effect of Motive on Acceptance

Key Facts: Williams v Carwardine

The defendant published a handbill offering £20 reward to anyone (except the murderer) who gave information leading to the discovery of the murder of his brother, Walter Carwardine.

The plaintiff, Mary Anne Williams, had previously given a weak/incorrect statement.

Months later, after being beaten by one of the suspects (William Williams) and believing she was near death, she made a full confession about what she saw on the night of the murder.

Her motive: to ease her conscience, not to earn the reward.

Her information led to the conviction of the murderers: Joseph Pugh, John Matthews, and William Williams.

She claimed the £20.

Defendant argued: She did not give the information because of the reward, but due to fear of death and guilt of conscience. Therefore, she did not “accept” the offer.

Legal Issue

Did Mrs Williams’ motive (that she acted from conscience rather than for the reward) prevent formation of a contract and therefore bar recovery of the advertised reward?

Decision / Ratio (Williams v Carwardine)

The court held for Mrs Williams. Because she knew of the offer and performed the condition of the offer (giving information that led to the conviction), she was entitled to the reward. The judges made clear that the motive for performing the act was immaterial — performance of the terms of a public/unilateral offer by a person who knows of that offer will normally give rise to liability to pay.

A famous statement by Parke J:

“The motive is not material; if she comes within the terms of the handbill, that is sufficient.”

Significance

Williams v Carwardine is a leading authority on unilateral (reward) offers and acceptance by performance. It supports the proposition that objective performance of the offer’s terms (together with knowledge of the offer) is enough — subjective motive is irrelevant.

The case is often contrasted with R v Clarke (Australian HCA) on whether reliance on the offer is required; Williams suggests mere knowledge of the offer (and performance of its terms) suffices, while Clarke has been read to require reliance, i.e., the claimant must act in reliance on the offer.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1833/J44.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866): Offer Expiry
Partridge v Crittenden [1968]: A Landmark Case Explained

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

R v Clarke (1927): Can Motive Defeat a Reward Claim?

R v Clarke (1927) is a leading Australian contract law case on offer & acceptance and, more specifically, whether a person can accept an offer (reward) without relying on it. Here is a clean and structured analysis of the case.

  • Citation: R v Clarke [1927] HCA 47; (1927) 40 CLR 227
  • Court: High Court of Australia
  • Judges: Isaacs ACJ, Higgins J, Starke J
  • Decision date: 22 November 1927
  • Area of Law: Contract Law — Acceptance of Offer, Reward Cases, Intention & Reliance

Background Facts: R v Clarke

Two police officers, Inspector Walsh and Sergeant Pitman, were murdered in Western Australia.

The Government issued a proclamation offering £1,000 as a reward for “such information as shall lead to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who committed the murders.”

Evan Clarke, who was himself under suspicion, gave information that helped police catch the criminals.

Importantly, he was not acting with the intention of claiming the reward — he was acting to clear himself of a murder charge.

He later tried to claim the reward.

The Main Legal Question

Can a person claim a reward when they provide information that satisfies the conditions, even if they did NOT act in reliance on the offer?

OR

Is knowledge of the offer + performance of the conditions enough, even without intention to accept the offer?

High Court’s Decision and Reasoning (R v Clarke)

The High Court held Clarke could NOT claim the reward.

All three judges agreed that in unilateral contracts (like rewards), performance of the act = acceptance, but only if the performance is done in response to the offer.

There must be knowledge of the offer, and acting on the faith of the offer (reliance). A person who performs the conditions of a reward must do so in reliance on the offer.

Clarke himself admitted that he gave information solely to save himself. He had no thought of the reward at the time.

Outcome:

Clarke not entitled to the £1,000.

The Court criticised the old case of Williams v Carwardine. In Williams v Carwardine (1833), a woman provided information because of guilt, but still received the reward. The High Court said: That case is unclear. If it is taken to mean that motive doesn’t matter so long as the person knew of the offer, it may be wrong.

Key Principle from the Case

A reward cannot be claimed unless the act is done in reliance on the offer.

Knowledge alone is NOT enough.

To form a contract from a unilateral offer (a reward), the claimant must act in reliance on the offer — i.e. perform the conditions in response to the offer. Because the evidence showed Clarke gave the information to secure his own position (not in response to the reward), there was no acceptance and no contract.

You may refer to the full case judgment here:

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1927/47.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866): Offer Expiry
Harris v Nickerson (1873): Key Principle in Auction Contract Law

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866): Offer Expiry

Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore (1866) is a classic contract-law case about lapse of an offer. Below is a short and clear summary of the case along with its key details.

  • Case Name & Citation: Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co Ltd v Montefiore (1866) — LR 1 Exch 109
  • Court: Court of Exchequer (England)
  • Areas of Law: Formation of contract, Offer and acceptance, Lapse of offer/expiry by effluxion of time

Key Facts: Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore

Montefiore applied to buy shares in the newly formed Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Company in June 1864. The company did not allot the shares immediately; it purported to accept his application about six months later (November). By then market conditions had changed and Montefiore refused to go through with the purchase. The company sued.

Legal Issue

Was there a binding contract — i.e., had the company validly accepted Montefiore’s offer so as to create enforceable obligations?

Decision/Ratio (Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v Montefiore)

The Court held for Montefiore. Where an offer does not specify how long it stays open, it expires after a reasonable time; what counts as reasonable depends on the subject-matter. Here six months was held unreasonable for an offer to buy shares (whose value fluctuates), so the offer had lapsed before the company attempted acceptance — no contract.

Legal Principle to Take Away

If no time for acceptance is fixed, an offeree must accept within a reasonable time; otherwise, the offer may be treated as having lapsed (and cannot later be accepted). Reasonableness is fact-specific.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Harris v Nickerson (1873): Key Principle in Auction Contract Law
Partridge v Crittenden [1968]: A Landmark Case Explained

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Thanks for reading — hope this helped deepen your understanding.

Harris v Nickerson (1873): Key Principle in Auction Contract Law

Harris v Nickerson (1873) is a landmark English contract law case about advertisements and whether they amount to offers. Given below is a brief summary.

  • Citation & Court: Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR 8 QB 286 (Queen’s Bench).
  • Date decided: 25 April 1873.
  • The bench of judges: Blackburn, Quain and Archibald JJ.
  • Areas of law: Contract law — formation (offer & acceptance), invitation to treat (advertisements/auction notices), auction law

Facts: Harris v Nickerson

An auctioneer (Nickerson) advertised a 3-day auction listing various lots (including office furniture). The claimant (Harris) travelled to the auction to bid on that furniture, but the auctioneer withdrew those lots on the day. Harris sued to recover his travel/time expenses, arguing the advertisement was an offer which his attendance had accepted.

The Key Issue that Arose

Does an advertisement that goods “will be put up” at auction amount to a legally binding offer (so that withdrawing the lots amounts to breach)?

Decision & Ratio Decidendi

The court held the advertisement was not an offer but a mere invitation to treat / declaration of intent. Therefore, no contract arose simply because Harris attended; the auctioneer was free to withdraw lots before the sale, and was not liable for Harris’s expenses. The judges emphasized public-policy reasons (it would be unreasonable to make advertisers liable to everyone who incurred travel expenses).

Legal Significance (Harris v Nickerson)

The case is a classic authority for the proposition that ordinary advertisements announcing sales or auctions are generally invitations to treat, not offers — bidders acquire no right to insist advertised lots actually be put up; a contract at auction arises only when a bid is accepted (fall of the hammer). It’s widely cited in offer-and-acceptance doctrine and referenced in various contract-law cases/litigations.

List of sources:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Smythe v Thomas [2007]: Can You Back Out After Selling on eBay?
Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean: A Detailed Legal Analysis

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Partridge v Crittenden [1968]: A Landmark Case Explained

Here’s a clear and concise summary of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204—a leading English contract law case.

Case Citations: [1968] 1 WLR 1204; [1968] 2 All ER 421; (1968) 132 JP 367; (1968) 112 SJ 582

  • Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court)
  • Judges: Lord Parker CJ, Ashworth J, Blain J
  • Legal Area: Contract Law – Invitation to Treat vs. Offer

What happened in Partridge v Crittenden?

Partridge placed a classified advert in a magazine named “Cage and Aviary Birds” saying something like “Bramblefinch cocks, Bramblefinch hens, 25s. each.” He was prosecuted under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 for “offering for sale” wild birds. The Protection of Birds Act 1954 made it an offence to offer certain wild birds for sale.

The question was whether the advertisement amounted to a legal offer (which could make him guilty) or merely an invitation to treat.

If it was an offer, Partridge would be guilty.

If it was an invitation to treat, he would not be liable.

Decision & Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the advertisement was an invitation to treat, not an offer, so the offence (as charged) was not made out and the conviction could not stand. The case confirms the established contract-law rule that ordinary advertisements are usually invitations to treat, not offers capable of immediate acceptance. They invite customers to make an offer, rather than binding the advertiser the moment someone responds.

No legal obligation arises just from an ad.

The court followed the same principle as in Fisher v Bell (1961).

Outcome:

Partridge’s conviction was overturned. He was not legally offering the birds for sale—only inviting customers to make offers.

Why the Case Matters?

Partridge v Crittenden is a staple authority on formation of contracts and statutory interpretation: it protects sellers from being automatically bound (or criminally liable) by routine classified ads, and it reinforces the invitation-to-treat rule used in consumer and contract law.

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean: A Detailed Legal Analysis
Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880): Postal Rule vs Revocation Rule

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean: A Detailed Legal Analysis

Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean is a contract law case about whether a telegram asking for more information amounts to a counter-offer. Below is a short and clear summary of the case along with its key details.

  • Case Name & Citation: Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean [1880] 5 QBD 346
  • Court: Queen’s Bench Division (QBD)
  • The learned Judge: Lush J
  • Date decided: 1880
  • Area of law: Contract law — offer and acceptance; counter-offers; communication of revocation and acceptance

Facts: Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean

McLean telegraphed an offer to sell iron at “40s., nett cash, open till Monday.”

On Monday morning (at 9:42 am) Stevenson Jaques & Co telegraphed asking “whether you would accept forty for delivery over two months; or, if not, longest limit you would give.”

McLean later sold the iron to a third party and telegraphed a revocation at 1:25 pm.

Before receiving that revocation, Stevenson sent an unconditional acceptance by telegram at 1:34 pm.

Litigation followed and Stevenson sued for breach when the goods were not delivered.

Key Legal Issues

Was Stevenson’s 9:42 am telegram a counter-offer (which would reject and kill McLean’s original offer) or merely an inquiry?

If McLean tried to revoke, was his revocation effective before Stevenson’s acceptance (i.e., is a revocation by telegraph effective when it is despatched/sent)?

Judgment (by Lush J) in Stevenson, Jaques & Co v McLean

The 9:42 am telegram was a request for information, not a counter-offer, so McLean’s original offer remained open. A revocation is not effective until communicated — McLean’s telegram of revocation had not reached Stevenson before Stevenson’s acceptance — therefore a binding contract was formed and the plaintiffs succeeded.

Stevenson, Jaques & Co sent their acceptance by telegram at 1:34 p.m. The court held that because McLean’s revocation had not yet been received by the plaintiffs at 1:34 p.m., the offer remained open, and therefore the acceptance at 1:34 p.m. resulted in a binding contract.

Ratio / Legal principles

Inquiry ≠ counter-offer. A mere request for information does not terminate the original offer; the offeree can still accept the original terms later.

Revocation must be communicated. An offeror may revoke before acceptance, but revocation is ineffective until it actually reaches the offeree (relying on authorities such as Byrne v Van Tienhoven).

Practical Significance

This case is frequently cited in contract-formation discussions to distinguish counter-offers from mere enquiries (contrast with Hyde v Wrench). It confirms that communications (including telegrams) are governed by the ordinary principle that revocation must be communicated to be effective — a useful rule where instantaneous or near-instant communications are used.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977]
What Routledge v Grant (1828) Teaches About Revocable Offers?

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880): Postal Rule vs Revocation Rule

Byrne v Van Tienhoven (1880) is a foundational contract law case on offer and revocation by post. Here’s a summary of the facts and judgment.

  • Case Name & Citation: Byrne & Co v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co [1880] 5 CPD 344
  • Court: Court of Common Pleas Division, High Court of Justice (England)
  • Judge: Lindley J
  • Areas of Law: Contract Law, Offer and Acceptance, Revocation of Offer, Postal Rule (Communication of Acceptance)

Facts: Byrne v Van Tienhoven

On 1 Oct 1880 Van Tienhoven posted an offer from Cardiff to Byrne in New York to sell 1,000 boxes of tinplate. Byrne received that offer on 11 Oct and accepted by telegram the same day.

Van Tienhoven had, however, posted a revocation letter on 8 Oct, but that revocation did not reach Byrne until 20 Oct. Byrne relied on their acceptance and sued when Van Tienhoven refused to perform.

Legal Issues

Whether the defendant’s revocation (sent by post) was effective to prevent formation of contract?

Does the postal rule apply to revocation as it does to acceptance?

Judgment / Ratio Decidendi

Lindley J held for Byrne.

The revocation was ineffective because it had not been communicated to the offeree before acceptance. An uncommunicated revocation is no revocation in law.

The court distinguished the postal rule for acceptance (where an acceptance is effective when posted) from revocation: posting a revocation is not effective until it is received.

The revocation was received after the acceptance was sent. Therefore, the contract had already been formed on 11 October when the acceptance telegram was sent.

Ratio Decidendi: A revocation of an offer is effective only when it is communicated to the offeree. Simply sending a letter of revocation is not enough. This case firmly confirms that although acceptances can be effective upon posting (postal rule), revocations do NOT follow the postal rule — they must be received.

Legal Significance (Byrne v Van Tienhoven)

The case is a leading authority that the postal rule does not apply to withdrawal of offers — revocation must be actually communicated to the offeree to take effect.

If an offeror wants to revoke an offer, they must ensure the offeree actually receives the revocation before the offeree accepts — simply posting a withdrawal letter isn’t enough.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

What Routledge v Grant (1828) Teaches About Revocable Offers?
Hyde v Wrench (1840) Explained: High-Value Contract Law Case

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977]

Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 is the leading English case on the battle of forms. Below is a short and clear summary of the case along with its key details.

Citation: Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9 (reported [1979] 1 WLR 401)

  • Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
  • Judges: Lord Denning MR, Lawton LJ, Bridge LJ
  • Date of Judgment: 25th April 1977
  • Area: Contract Law — Battle of Forms, Offer & Acceptance

Facts: Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd

On 23 May 1969, Butler (seller) sent a quotation for a machine worth £75,535. On the back were standard terms including a price variation clause (price could increase if costs went up). It also said: the seller’s terms “shall prevail over any terms and conditions in the buyer’s order.”

On 27 May 1969, Ex-Cell-O (buyer) sent back an order for the same machine but on its own terms which did not contain a price variation clause and included different delivery terms, carriage and cancellation rights etc. It also included a tear-off slip (acknowledgment) which the seller had to sign: “We accept your order on the terms and conditions stated thereon.”

On 5 June 1969, Butler signed and returned the tear-off slip.

Later, delivery was delayed. Butler invoked the price increase clause and demanded an extra £2,892.

Ex-Cell-O refused to pay, saying the contract was on their terms, not Butler’s.

High Court judge ruled for Butler. Ex-Cell-O appealed.

Legal Issue

Whose standard terms governed the contract?

Butler’s terms (including price variation clause)

OR

Ex-Cell-O’s terms (fixed price, no price variation)

Decision & Reasoning

Appeal allowed. Contract was on the buyer’s terms. No price variation clause applied.

The Court of Appeal (especially Lawton LJ and Bridge LJ) applied classical contract principles:

  • Butler’s quotation = offer
  • Ex-Cell-O’s order = counter-offer (it materially altered the key terms). A counter-offer kills the original offer (Hyde v Wrench).
  • Butler signing the tear-off slip = acceptance of the buyer’s counteroffer.

Thus, the contract was concluded on Ex-Cell-O’s terms.

Denning MR discussed a more flexible approach. Instead of rigid offer/counteroffer analysis, courts should look at all documents and conduct to identify consensus. Sometimes the “last shot” wins; sometimes the “first shot.” But in this case, he agreed the buyer’s form prevailed because Butler accepted the exact wording on the tear-off slip: “We accept your order on the terms and conditions stated thereon.”

As usual, Denning tried to modernise the law, but the other two judges stuck strictly to classical doctrine. Denning still arrived at the same result.

Outcome:

Contract was on Ex-Cell-O’s terms.

No price rise clause.

Butler not entitled to extra £2,892.

Rule/Legal Principle [Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd]

In a battle of forms, where each party insists on its own standard terms:

A purported acceptance that introduces materially different terms is a counter-offer (Hyde v Wrench).

When the other party signs or otherwise unequivocally accepts that counter-offer, the counter-offer’s terms govern.

The “last shot” generally wins when it is accepted without objection.

Takeaway:

When companies exchange conflicting standard forms, the contract usually contains the terms of the last definite acceptance — here, the buyer’s signed acknowledgement — so Butler’s price-variation clause did not apply.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/9.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Fong v Cilli (1968): Does an Offer Die with the Offeror?
Grainger & Son v Gough [1896]: Landmark Case

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:

What Routledge v Grant (1828) Teaches About Revocable Offers?

Routledge v Grant (1828) is a foundational contract law case on whether an offeror can revoke an offer despite promising to keep it open for a fixed period. Given below is a brief summary.

  • Citations: Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653; 130 ER 920
  • Court / Year: Court of Common Pleas, 1828
  • Year of Decision: 1828
  • Areas of Law: Offer and Acceptance, Revocation of Offers, Consideration (Option Contracts), Formation of Contracts

Key Facts: Routledge v Grant

Grant (defendant) wrote to Routledge (plaintiff) offering to buy the plaintiff’s lease and stated the offer would remain open for six weeks.

Before Routledge accepted, Grant changed his mind and sent a letter withdrawing the offer.

On the other hand, Routledge then attempted to accept within the six-week period (and had taken steps in reliance), but the defendant refused to complete the transaction.

Legal Issue

Was the defendant bound to keep the offer open for the stated six weeks so that the plaintiff’s later acceptance created a binding contract?

Court’s Decision in Routledge v Grant

The court held that the offer was validly revoked before acceptance. No binding contract arose.

Further, the mere promise to keep the offer open for six weeks was not binding unless it was supported by consideration (or some other enforceable option mechanism).

Therefore, Routledge’s attempted acceptance after the revocation did not create a contract.

Ratio Decidendi / Legal Principles

An offeror may revoke an offer at any time before it is accepted, even if the offer stated it would remain open for a period, unless the offeree has given consideration to make the promise to keep it open (i.e. an enforceable option).

In simple terms,

Offers can be cancelled any time before acceptance.

Saying “offer open for 6 weeks” is not binding unless the other person pays or gives something in return.

No consideration = no obligation to keep the offer open.

Practical Significance

Routledge v Grant is an early authority for the principle that offers are revocable up until acceptance, and that a stated time period in the offer does not by itself make the offer irrevocable. To make an offer irrevocable for a period (an “option”), the offeree must give consideration (or some other legally-recognized basis must exist). This case is commonly cited in contract-formation doctrine.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Fong v Cilli (1968): Does an Offer Die with the Offeror?
Fitch v Snedaker (1868): Legal Rules of a Valid Offer

MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW: