ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

3. INTRODUCTION & GENERAL OVERVIEW

In our daily business dealings, an understanding of the law of contract is inevitable.

Almost every aspect of business activities would culminate in an agreement i.e. a
contract. It governs the rights and obligations of parties involved in business transactions.
The basis of Malaysian contract law is in the Contracts Act 1950 (hereinafter as CA).

What is a contract?
A contract is an agreement between two or more parties that is legally binding between
them. Section 2(h) of CA 1950 states that ‘an agreement enforceable by law is a contract’.

Types of Contract:
(a) Bilateral contracts – both parties make promises to one another. This is mutual
exchange of promises.
E.g. A promises to supply goods to B, and B promises to pay A for the goods
supplied.

(b) Unilateral contracts – one party is making the promise whilst the other party
accepts by merely performing the act. – Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co. Ltd.
E.g: A lost his dog and promise to reward RM100 to anyone who can find and return
his dog.

Form of Contract
A contract can be made in writing, orally, by conduct or a combination of it.

Elements of a contract
If the following elements are not present or fulfilled, the agreement is not a contract. 1.
Proposal or Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration
4. Intention to create legal relations
5. Capacity
6. Certainty
7. Consent
8. Legality.

3.1 PROPOSAL / OFFER

3.1.1 What is a proposal / offer?

Section 2(a) of CA 1950 defines that ‘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
the act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal / an offer.

1
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

The person making the proposal/offer is called the “Offeror/Proposer/Promisor’.

The person accepting the proposal/offer is called the “Offeree/Proposee/ Promisee’.

An offer, once accepted, becomes an agreement or contract. Section 2(h)of CA 1950 – a

contract is an agreement enforceable by law.

Therefore, an offer is an undertaking which is certain and definite, made with the intention
that it shall become binding on the party as soon as it is accepted by the party to whom it
is addressed to.

E.g.: A offers to buy B car for RM10k – A is making a proposal, if B accepts A’s offer,
there will be an agreement.

- Can include type of offer

3.1.2 Types of offer

- There are two types of offer: bilateral offer, and unilateral offer.

i. A bilateral offer is where the offer is made to a particular person or group of

persons. The identity of the offeror/proposer and the identity of the
offeree/proposee are known to the parties.

ii. A unilateral offer is where the offer is made ‘to the world at large’(public). Only the
identity of the offeror is known as in Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co. Ltd.

3.13 To whom can a proposal / offer be made?

(i) It can be made to an individual/party – then only that individual/party can accept,
as in a bilateral contract.

(ii) It can be made to the general public – so anyone can accept if conditions
prescribed in the offer are fulfilled as in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball
Co. This is a unilateral contract.

3.1.4 In what form should a proposal be made?

Section 9 provide that:
- If a proposal made in words (oral or written) then it is expressed.
- If otherwise, then it is implied.

3.15 What are the requirements of a proposal?

a. The subject matter of the proposal / offer must be certain

2
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

The proposal entered between the parties must not be vague or uncertain. Section
30 - the meaning of an agreement which is not certain shall be void.

E.g.: A agrees to sell to B “a hundred tons of oil”. There is nothing to show what
kind of oil was intended. The agreement is void for uncertainty.

b. The proposal must be communicated to the offeree

The offeror must make sure that his offer is communicated to the offeree.
Otherwise the offer is not complete.

Section 4(1) – The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the

knowledge of the person to whom it is made.

E.g.: A proposes, by letter, to sell a house to B at a certain price. The

communication of the proposal is complete when B receives the letter.

3.2 OFFER V INVITATION TO TREAT

Sometimes a party may make a statement that look like a proposal/offer but it is not. It is
an invitation to treat (ITT). CA 1950 does not contain any provisions for ITT. ITT was
adopted from the English common law by our Malaysian judges and has become part of
Malaysian contract law.

Distinguish between an offer and invitation to treat.

 Section 2(a) of Contracts Act 1950 defines offer as follows: “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 the act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal”.
 In other words, offer is something which is capable of being converted into a legally binding
agreement by acceptance.
 Contracts Act 1950 does not have any provision on invitation to treat. This principle was
adopted from the English common law by our judges and has become part of Malaysian contract
law.
 An invitation to treat is a preliminary communication. It is an effort to induce others to make an
offer. It is not by itself, capable of being accepted to form a binding agreement.
 Examples of invitation to treat includes display of goods for sale in shops, advertisements, and
auctions.

3.2.1 What is ITT?

An ITT is an invitation to induce other party to make an offer. It is not, by itself, capable of
being accepted as to form a binding agreement.

3
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

In the case of Hart v Mills, the court held that ITT is an offer to negotiate. Advertisements
of selling books or houses to let is not an offer to be bound by any contract. Such
advertisements are offers to negotiate, offers to receive or offers to bargain/negotiate on
the price.

3.2.2 Examples of ITT

a) Display of goods / Display of goods with price tags in shops/ on shelves.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemist Ltd.

The defendant, Boots, operates a chain of self-service stores and its goods were all
displayed on the shelves. A customer entering the store would take a basket to put
in the items he had selected, place them in the basket to be brought to the cashier.
A registered pharmacist would be stationed at the cashier’s counter.

The defendant was charged for selling a listed poison without the supervision of a
registered pharmacist. The question in this case was whether the sale (i.e. contract)
has taken place? and whether the display of goods an offer or invitation to treat?

The court held that the display of the goods was merely an invitation to treat. A
proposal is made when the customer place the item at the cashier. When the
cashier “rings the till’ i.e. enters into the cash register, there is an acceptance.
Hence, there was no sale between the plaintiff and defendant.

Fisher v Bell
The authorities charged the defendant with offering for sale a flick knife in his
shopwindow, which was against the law.
The court held that the display of an article (i.e. flick knife) with a price on it in a shop
window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no sense an offer for sale.

b) Supply of information / Request for Price Quotes

Is asking for information or price an offer?

Harvey v Facey
P: Will you sell us Bumper Hall Pen? Telegraph lowest cash price.
D: Lowest price for Bumper Hall Pen, £900.
P: We agree to buy Bumper Hall Pen for £900 asked by you. Please send us
your title deeds.
P did not received any reply from D after that.
It was held that there was no contract. The 2nd telegraph was not an offer, but only
a supply of information of the minimum price. The 3rd telegram is an offer which was
capable of acceptance, but was never accepted as D was silent after that.

4
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd. v Edward Leong

The publisher asked for price quotations from the printer. After receiving the price
quotation from the printer, the publisher placed printing orders. The issue was
whether price quotations made by the printer is acceptance of an offer.

The court held: The quotations were merely a supply of information and were an
ITT. Therefore the printing orders made by publisher were offers, and it is for the
printer to accept the offers.

c) Advertisements , catalogues & circulars

Generally holding out goods for sale in this manner is a mere attempt to induce
offers. It is not an offer itself but an invitation to treat.

 Aadvertisements only supply information or notifies others of the advertiser’s goods or services.
Even if the advertisement indicates a price for the goods or services, it is merely supplying
information as to the price.

Partridge V Crittenden
The appellant had inserted in an advertisement: ‘Bramble Finch Cocks and Hens,
25s each”. This appeared under the general heading of ‘Classified Advertisements’
and the words ‘offer for sale’ were not used. He was charged for unlawfully offering
for sale a wild live bird contrary to the Protection of Birds Act 1954.

It was held that there had been no offer for sale. When one is dealing with
advertisements, there is a business sense in their being construed as ITT and not
an offer for sale.

Majumder v AG of Sarawak, it was held that an advertisement in the newspaper for

the post of a doctor was merely an ITT and not an offer.

i) An Advertisement could be an offer and not ITT

An advertisement could either be an offer or an invitation to treat. It is very much
depends on the intention of the parties in the case.

- Some advertisements include conditions which if performed, may entitle the person
performing the condition to any kind of reward. In such situations, the advertisement may
be a unilateral offer.

In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd. - the advertisement to buy and use its
product was held to be a unilateral offer because the offer was ‘made to the world
at large.’

5
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

Defendant Co. advertised they would offer £100 to anyone who would get
influenza after using their smoke ball, a drug, in a prescribed manner and for a
specified time period. To show their sincerity the Co. deposited £1000 into a bank
for such purpose. Mrs. Carlill bought and used the smoke balls as prescribed but
nevertheless became ill with influenza. She sued the Co. for the promised reward.

The court held that the advertisement was an offer to the world at large (a
unilateral contract) and any person can come forward and fulfil the conditions by
performing an act as advertised in the advertisement and Mrs. Carlill received her
rightful compensation.

 Example of a case where advertisement is a unilateral offer is the case of Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball (1892).
 In this case, Carbolic Smokeball Company made a medicine called the “smoke ball” and claimed
that this medicine can cure several types of illnesses including influenza. It is important to note
that this medicine was advertised around the 1889-1890 flu pandemic. The 1889-1890 flu
pandemic was estimated to have killed 1 million people.
 The company published advertisements claiming it would pay £100 reward (equivalent to
£11,000 in 2019) to anyone who got sick with influenza after using the product according to the
instructions provided with it. The company further stated in the advertisement that to show
their sincerity, they have deposited £1000 with a bank.
 Mrs Carlill saw the advertisement and purchased the smoke ball and used it daily according to
the instructions for almost two months. She still contracted the flu. She claimed for the £100
reward. The company refused to pay her claiming that their advertisement was not an offer and
it was only a marketing stunt.
 The court gave judgment in her favour since the advertisement had formed a unilateral offer
and Mrs Carlill had made a valid acceptance by purchasing and using the product according to
their instructions.

d) Auctions
Does the auctioneer’s request for bids an offer or is it merely an ITT to induce
customer to make the offer?

Payne v Cave
D made the highest bid and withdrew it before the fall of the hammer.
The court held that the auctioneer’s request for bids is only an ITT. The bid by the
customer constituted the offer. Since the bid was withdrawn before the fall of the
hammer, there was no contract between the parties.

Harris v Nickerson
The auctioneer advertised that certain goods, including office furniture would be sold
at a certain place on a certain date. The plaintiff went for the sale and all those
furniture which he was interested in were withdrawn. He sue for the loss or time and
expenses.

6
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

It was held that the advertisement for sale was a mere statement of intention to hold
a sale (it is an ITT) and not an offer which could be accepted to form a binding
contract.

e) Tenders
The party inviting tenders for the supply of goods or services is not making an offer
but an ITT. The tenderer who submits his bids/tenders is making the offer. It is for
the other party to accept or reject the offer. If the offer is accepted then there will be
a binding contract.

E.g.: A advertised in the newspapers calling for tenderer (contractors) to construct a

swimming pool. B, C and D sent their tenders to A. The advertisement made by A is
only an ITT and B, C and D’s tenders are proposals that A may accept or refuse.

The court held in Cheng Keng Hong v Gov. of the Federation of Malaya, that an
advertisement requesting for tenders if an ITT.

3.3 ACCEPTANCE

3.3.1 What is an acceptance?

Section 2(b) provides that when a person signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said
to be accepted and becomes a promise.

3.3.2 The form of the Acceptance

The general rule is that acceptance of a proposal must be communicated to the proposer
for there to be a binding contract between the parties.

Section 3 – the acceptance of proposals is deemed to be made by any act or omission of

the party accepting by which he intends to communicate the acceptance.

3.3.3 Rules of acceptance:

What must the proposee or offeree do in order to accept a proposal?

a) The offeree must signify his acceptance

Section 2(b) defines acceptance mean ‘when the person to whom the proposal is
made signifies his assent…the proposal is said to be accepted’.

This means in order for there to be a valid contract the offeree must convey his
acceptance to the offeror.

7
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

E.g.: A offers to buy B’s car for RM10k. If B said yes to A (B signifies his assent),
then B has accepted A’s proposal. A and B has now established an agreement.

In what form should an acceptance be made?

Section 9 - if the acceptance is made in words, the acceptance is ‘expressed’. If the

acceptance is made other than in words, the acceptance is implied.

When the proposal is accepted then under Section 2(c) - ‘the person making the
proposal is now called the ‘promisor’ and the person accepting the proposal is called
the “promisee”.

As in the above example, the offeror A is now the ‘promisor’, and offeree B is the
‘promisee’.

b) Acceptance in only complete when it is communicated to the offeror. This means

the acceptance is only effective when it is communicated or brought to the notice of
the offeror.
- The offeree must communicate his acceptance of the offer to the offeror for there to be a
binding contract between the parties.

i) In the case of acceptance under the Postal Rule:

i. What if the acceptance is by a letter sent by post?

ii. What happens if the letter of acceptance does not reach the Proposer, e.g.
where the letter goes astray or is lost?

Section 4(2) (a) CA1950 – states that the communication of an acceptance is

complete as against the proposer (offeror) when it is put in a course of
transmission to him (the offeror), so as to be out of the power of the acceptor
(offeree).

When the letter is posted the acceptor has put it ‘in the course of transmission’ in
such a way that he no longer has any control over it. The transaction becomes
binding on the proposer irrespective of any delay or disappearance of the letter of
acceptance in the course of transit.

In Henthorn v Fraser (1892) it was held that ‘when a contract is made by post, it is
clear law that acceptance is complete as soon as the letter is put into the post box,
and that is the place where the contract is made’.

8
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

The local authority for the above postal rule principle is Ignatius v Bell – i.e.
acceptance is complete upon posting where communication by post is the method
contemplated by the parties.

ii) The postal rule may be excluded by the express terms of the offer: Where
the proposal expressly or implicitly express states that it can only be accepted in
certain way, the promisee is bound to accept in the prescribed manner.

In the case of Frank v Knight, the court held that if the proposer asks for the
acceptance to be sent to a particular place, one sent to elsewhere will not bind
him.

In the case of Financings Ltd v Stimson, the court held that a proposer will not be
bound by an oral acceptance if he has asked for it to be expressed in writing.

iii) The postal rule may be excluded in instantaneous circumstances Postal

rule may also be excluded in cases of instantaneous circumstances, e.g.
telephone, telex, telefax or in today’s case using sms.

Entores v Miles Far East Corporation

P in London made an offer by telex to D in Amsterdam. D accepted by telex
message transmitted to London. Later, D was in breach of contract. P tried to
establish that the contract by telex was made in London where the acceptance
took place so that legal action could be decided in London by the English courts.
Held: The contract was made in London, at the place where the acceptance was
actually received by P.

iv) Exception – where acceptance need not be communicated:

The general rule that acceptance must be communicated can be dispensed with if:
(i) the proposer has dispensed with or waived the need for acceptance, or

(ii) the proposer allows the ‘conditions of the proposal’ to be performed without
acceptance being communicated i.e. by action or by conduct as in a
unilateral contract e.g. Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Co. where the mode of
acceptance is by performance of the conditions stated in the offer. This
principle is provided in Section 8 – Performance of the conditions of a
proposal is an acceptance of the proposal.

c) Acceptance must be in reliance on the offer:

9
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

The person who wants to accept the offer must be aware of the offer. This is the
necessary nexus between offer and acceptance.

R v Clarke
The Australian govt. offered a reward of $1,000 and grant a free pardon for
information leading to the arrest of the murderers for the murder of 2 police office
officers. Clarke supplied the information and admitted at the hearing that he had
supplied the information to save his skin and the thought of the reward had
completely passed out of his mind.
The court held that ignorance of the offer is the same as never hearing it or
forgetting it after hearing it. Therefore, Clarke failed to get the reward.

d) Acceptance must be absolute and unqualified

Section 7(a) states, to convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance must be
absolute and unqualified.

The acceptance must be absolute and unqualified (not subject to any conditions)
so that there is complete consensus. Therefore, if the parties are still negotiating,
there is no agreement yet or adding any new terms or conditions then there would
be no acceptance.

Here are two situations where acceptance is not absolute and is qualified:

(i) Counter offer

Refusing the original terms or adding new terms will have the effect qualifying the
acceptance. It becomes counter offer. – see Hyde v Wrench.

A counter offer is not acceptance. The effect of a counter offer is that it rejects or
destroys the original offer and replaced it with a new offer, this time, from the other
party who was offered originally.

Hyde v Wrench
6 June - D offered to sell his estate to P for £1000.
7 June – P replied that he will pay £950 (here P made a counter offer).
8 June - D refused to accept P’s proposal.
When D refused, P wrote again this time agreeing to pay £1000 – this is an
attempt to revive the original proposal.

It was held that no acceptance had taken placed because P’s counter offer on 7
June amounts to a rejection of the original proposal which could not be revived.

10
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

 Hyde v Wrench (1840) is a leading English contract law case on the issue of counteroffers and
their relation to initial offer. In this case, Lord Langdale ruled that any counteroffer cancels the
original offer.
 Facts of the case:
 6 June: Wrench offered to sell his farm to Hyde for £1000, stating that it was the final offer
and that he would not alter from it.
 7 June: Hyde replied that he will pay £950. Here Hyde made a counter proposal.
 8 June: Wrench refused to accept Hyde’s proposal and informed him of the refusal on this
date.
 29 June: When Wrench refused, Hyde wrote again and this time he agreed to pay £1000 – the
original proposal.
 Wrench refused to sell the farm and Hyde sued for breach of contract.
 It was held that no acceptance had taken place because Hyde’s letter dated 7th June has
destroyed the original offer. The offer made on 29th June was also not accepted. Therefore,
since there is no acceptance, there is no contract. Hyde’s action failed.

(ii) Acceptance ‘Subject to contract’

In cases where the parties agreed but the acceptance is qualified with the term
‘subject to contract’ or ‘subject to a formal contract’. Here the acceptance is subject
to a condition.

Conditional acceptance is no acceptance until the offeror agrees to the condition.

Therefore the condition would have to be fulfilled before there can be a contract.

This is because the intention of the parties is not to make a concluded bargain as
yet, unless and until they have executed a formal contract.

Low Kar Yit V Mohd Isa

D gave option to P’s agent to purchase a parcel of land subject to a formal contract
being drawn up and agreed by the parties. P’s agent exercised the option but D
failed to sign the agreement. P sued for breach of contract.
The High Court held there was no binding contract. ‘The option on the face of it
was clearly conditional upon and subject to ‘a formal contract to be drawn up and
agreed upon’ between the parties.

e) Acceptance must be within reasonable time

Section 6(b) - A proposal is revoked by the lapse of time prescribed in the proposal
for its acceptance, or, if no time is so prescribed, by the lapse of a reasonable time,
without communication of the acceptance.

(i) Lapsed of time prescribed

Seascope Sdn Bhd v Syed Izhar bin Syed Salleh

11
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

P proposed to D that the share agreement must be accepted before 30 June 1997.
D communicate the acceptance on January 1998, which was 6 months after the
proposal expired (lapsed). The court held that there was no acceptance to the
proposal and hence, there was no valid and binding contract between the parties.

(ii) Reasonable time

Section 47 - what is reasonable time in each particular cases, is a question of fact.
It depends on circumstances of the subject matter and the means used to
communicate the acceptance.

f) Acceptance must be in the prescribed manner

Section 7 (b) provides that acceptance must be expressed in some usual and
reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribes the manner in which it is to be
accepted.

(i) Prescribe manner of acceptance:

If the proposer prescribes a particular method of acceptance. For example,
acceptance must be in writing, acceptance by email/ acceptance by payment of
prescribed fee, the proposee must comply with the manner prescribed in order to
accept the proposal. If proposee fails to do so it shall be deemed that he has
waived his right to accept.

(ii) Offeror cannot prescribe silence as a manner of acceptance

It has been held that the offeror cannot prescribe ‘silence’ as a manner of
acceptance.

Felthouse v Bindley
P’s uncle offered to buy a horse from P for £30 and adding, “...if I hear no more
about him, I consider the horse mine at that price’. P did not reply to the letter and
the question arose as to whether the uncle’s letter made good acceptance. It was
held that P’s silence did not amount to acceptance of the offer to buy the horse at
£30.

3.4 REVOCATION
There are 2 types of revocation i.e. revocation of offer and the other is revocation of
acceptance.

3.4.1 REVOCATION OF PROPOSAL / OFFER

12
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

a) A proposal can be revoke at any time before it is accepted:

The rule is until a proposal is accepted, no legal rights arise and the proposer is free to
withdraw, terminate or revoke his offer at any time by giving notice of the revocation to the
other party.

This is found in Section 5 (1) CA which states that a proposal may be revoked at any time
before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer but not
afterwards. Meaning the revocation of a proposal must be communicated to the offeree
before it is accepted by the offeree.

Routledge v Grant
Grant offered to buy Routledge’ horse and gave him 6 weeks to decide whether to accept
the offer. Before the 6 weeks had lapsed, Grant withdrew his offer. It was held that in
absence of Routledge having accepted, Grant was entitled to revoke his offer.

b) How can a proposal be revoke?

Section 6 of the contracts Act 1950 provides 4 ways in which an offer is revoked.

S6(a) CA1950 states that an offer can be revoke by the communication of the notice of
revocation by the proposer to the other party.

This means the offeror must communicate his notice of revocation to the offeree
E.g. In order to revoke his offer, X must communicate the notice of revocation of his offer
to Y before Y accepts.

- S.5(1) CA 1950 states a proposal can be revoked any time before the communication of acceptance
is complete.

S6 (b) CA1950 states that an offer can be revoke by the lapse of time prescribed in the
proposal for its acceptance, or, if no time is so prescribe, by the lapse of a reasonable
time, without communication of the acceptance.
- What is reasonable time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case such as the nature
of the subject matter and the means used to communicate the proposal.

- In the case of Ramsgate Victoria Hotel, defendant applied for shares in plaintiff’s company and paid
a deposit on 8th June. He received no further news until 23 rd November when he was informed that
the shares had been allotted to him and that he should pay the balance due on them. Defendant
refused to pay the balance. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The court held that there was no
valid binding contract because acceptance was not made within reasonable time. The offer has been
automatically revoked.

13
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

S6 (c) CA1950 states that an offer can be revoke by the failure of the acceptor to fulfill a
condition precedent to acceptance.

- Offer is automatically revoked if acceptor failed to fulfil a condition before acceptance.

What is the meaning of failure to fulfill a condition precedent?

E.g. If a company offers to employ an applicant on condition he passes a health test, if the
applicant fails his health test, he has failed to fulfill the condition precedent.

In the case of Financing Ltd. v Stimson

A car was to be delivered in the same condition (with the steering wheel, tyres and in a
good state) as it was seen at the time of the agreement. But at the time of delivery the car
was in a very poor state. The court held that the conditions had not been fulfilled. Since, the
acceptor failed to fulfil the condition, offer is automatically revoked.

S6 (d) states that an offer can be revoked by the death or mental disorder of the proposer,
if the fact of his death or mental disorder comes to the knowledge of the acceptor before
acceptance.

- However, if the fact of the offeror’s death or mental disorder is only known by offeree after making
acceptance, the acceptance is valid and binding.

3.4.2 REVOCATION OF ACCEPTANCE

a) How can a person revoke his acceptance?

S 5(2) states that an acceptance may be revoke at any time before the communication of
its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.

The above means that if the acceptor after having accepted an offer and wants to revoke
his acceptance, he must do so before his notice of acceptance reaches the offeror.

Illustration:

Alice proposes, by a letter sent by post, to sell her house to Ben.

Ben accepts Alice’s proposal and replied by letter which he posted back to Alice.

Ben may revoke his acceptance but it must be at any time before his letter of acceptance
reaches Alice, but not afterwards.

14
ABBL3033 Business Law – Chapter 3: Offer and Acceptance

b) Revocation of acceptance must be communicated to the offeror.

S 4 (3) – The communication of a revocation by the acceptor is complete –

(a) as against the person who makes it (the promisee), when it is put into a course
of transmission to the person to whom it is made (to the promisor), so as to be
out of the power of the person who makes it (by the promisee); and

(b) as against the person to whom it is made (the promisor), when it comes to his
knowledge.

Illustration

a) Ben revokes his acceptance by telegram. Ben’s revocation is complete as

against (binding) himself when the telegram is dispatched and as against
(binding) Alice when it reaches her (the promisor).

b) Once the acceptor Ben puts his revocation of acceptance ‘in a course of
transmission’, it is binding on him (he cannot withdraw the revocation).

But the communication of Ben’s revocation is not binding on the proposer Alice
until it comes to her knowledge.

If Alice, the proposer, receives Ben’s letter of acceptance on Tuesday and Ben’s
telegram revoking his acceptance on Wednesday, the telegram revoking the
acceptance is ineffective because Ben’s letter of acceptance has already come
to the knowledge of Alice on Tuesday.

15