is one of fact. Where a person whose horse was stolen exclaimed, "I will give $100 to anyone who will find out the thief," it was held not to be an offer to pay a reward, but merely an explosion of wrath against the thief.30 Yet, had the evidence proved that the offerer intended his offer to be accepted, then there would have been a serious offer.

16. Duration of offers-Reasonable time. The. offerer may withdraw his offer at any time before acceptance, but he is irrevocably bound after acceptance. If there is no acceptance and no revocation, the offer is open for a reasonable length of time. The determination of what is a reasonable length of time depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. In fact, a reasonable time may vary from a few minutes in some cases to a much longer time in other situations. Furthermore, where there are many decisions involving like situations, what is a reasonable time may become a matter of law rather than a question of fact. Then it is determined by the judge and not by the jury.31

In the case of Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v. Collier White Lead Co.,32 A offered to sell B linseed oil. The offer was by wire and sent at 9:15 p. m. on Saturday night, July 31st. B received the telegram on Monday, August 2nd, between 8 and 9 a. m. He sent a telegram of acceptance on Tuesday, August 3rd, at about 9 a. m. A refused to recognize the acceptance. The court held that the offer had terminated by lapse

30 Higgins v. Lessig, 49 Ill. App. 459.

31 Loring v. Boston, 7 Metc. 409 (Mass.); Ferrier v. Storer, 63 Ia. 484. 32 4 Dill. 431 (U. S.).

of time, taking into consideration the fact that the article was at that time fluctuating rapidly in value. Twenty-four hours' delay was held to be an unreasonable delay in this case. Similarly, an offer sent by telegram but accepted by mail would not comply with the implied terms of the offer, requiring a speedy answer. The offer would have terminated.

17. Same subject-Options.-A contract to keep an offer open for a certain length of time is called an option. Thus, A pays B a consideration of five dollars to keep open until January 1st B's offer to sell to him his horse. A may accept B's offer at any time up to January 1st, and B may not revoke the offer before January 1st. Suppose that A makes an offer in writing, and further states that he will keep the offer open for 15 days. Instead of receiving a consideration he places a seal after his name. Most jurisdictions hold that this is a contract, and that the offer is irrevocable for the time mentioned in the writing. Other jurisdictions hold that in the absence of consideration (as one dollar) the offer may be revoked.

Care should be exercised in distinguishing between the contract to keep open the offer and the contract which is formed when that offer is accepted. When A accepts B's offer, which is held open by contract, to buy his horse, there is then a further contract for the sale of a horse.33

18. Same subject-Time fixed.-An offer terminates when the time fixed in its terms for acceptance

33 Crandall v. Willig, 166 Ill. 233, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES; Mansfield v. Hodgdon, 147 Mass. 304.

has passed without any acceptance by the offeree. When A offers to sell B his law books if B will accept in 24 hours, the offer terminates of itself at the end of the 24 hours. Moreover, A may revoke the offer at any time before the 24 hours have passed, unless there is a contract, as an option, to keep the offer open.34

19. Same subject-Death-Insanity. The death of either the offerer or offeree terminates the offer. This is said to be by operation of law. The rule is properly based on the theory that an offer cannot exist unless there is a person whose mind is meeting that of the person who accepts. Similarly, since the offer is made to a specific person and not to the public, the death of the offeree destroys the offer. In general, insanity will terminate the offer.3 If, however, performance has been completed so that the parties cannot be put back in their original position, the contract will stand."

36

35

20. Same subject-Acceptance not in terms of offer. Where the offeree does not accept in the manner provided for by the offer, it is terminated. A sent a letter to B by a wagon. The letter offered flour for sale, and notified B to answer in a letter to be returned by the wagon. Instead, B posted his letter of acceptance, in order that it would reach A sooner. The failure to accept in the manner prescribed by the offerer, namely, by wagon, was considered a refusal of the terms of the offer as made,

34 Offord v. Davies, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 748 (Eng.).

35 Frith v. Lawrence, 1 Paige 434 (N. Y.); Pratt v. Trustees, 93 Ill. 475, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

36 Beach v. M. E. Church, 96 Ill. 177.

and the rejected offer was thereby terminated. There was, therefore, no contract created.

37

21. Revocation of offers.-Termination and revocation are different things. Every case of revocation requires an act on the part of the offerer, whereas, as indicated, a termination occurs without the act of the offerer. To revoke an offer, the revocation must be communicated to or brought to the knowledge of the offeree. 38 But there are authorities supporting a modification of this rule. They hold that if the offeree acquires the knowledge that the offerer revoked the offer, the revocation is to be recognized. In whatever way the knowledge was acquired, whether directly from the offerer, or indirectly from a third party, the revocation is held by those authorities to be sufficient, provided always that the offeree did not accept before that knowledge reached him.39

Thus, if A on Monday morning offers to sell B his horse, and on Monday afternoon changes his mind, A must notify B that he has revoked his offer. Otherwise, if B accepts on Monday before the knowledge of the revocation reaches him, A is bound by his offer and B's acceptance.

But if B, while on the way to accept A's offer, met C, who informs him that A had revoked his offer to B, some authorities, as indicated, hold that this indirect means of communicating the revocation is sufficient.

37 Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheat. 225 (U. S.), LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES; Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U. S. 149, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

38 Brauer v. Shaw, 168 Mass. 198, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES. 39 McCauley v. Coe, 150 Ill. 311.

It must be noted, however, that inasmuch as the offerer may make his offer in such terms as he pleases, he may reserve the right to revoke without notice. Generally, also an offer made by an advertisement may be revoked by advertising such revocation as extensively as the offer had been advertised.40

41

Consequently, in the case of Sears v. Eastern R. R. Co.,11 a recovery was allowed because the change of notice in train time was not advertised as extensively as the original time table had been advertised.

Of course, if an offer has been accepted before revocation, it may not be revoked. Nor, as has been indicated, may an offer be revoked which is kept open by a contract.42

22. Continuing offers. Offers may be so made as to be capable of several acceptances, either by the same party or by different parties. These are called continuing offers, and there is a new contract upon each new acceptance of the offer. But the offer may be revoked before there is a subsequent further acceptance. This situation is illustrated by the case of Offord v. Davies.43 Messrs. Davies made a written offer to Offord, the plaintiff, that if Offord would discount bills for the "C" firm, Messrs. Davies would guarantee the payment of such bills to the extent of £600 during a period of twelve calendar months. Some bills were discounted by Offord, and duly paid,

40 Shuey v. United States, 92 U. S. 73.

41 14 Allen 433 (Mass.).

42 § 17; Brauer v. Shaw, 168 Mass. 198, LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES; Dickinson v. Dodds, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 463 (Eng.), LEADING ILLUSTRATIVE CASES.

42 12 C. B. (N. S.) 748 (Eng.).