§ 5. It proposal may lapse otherwise tJian by revocation as

/oUows V —

(a) By lapse of a prescribed time for acceptance. An

offer to sell goods ' receiving your answer in course of post *

would lapse upon failure to accept in course of post, i. e. by

return of post, and the proposer would be relieved from

liability upon a subsequent acceptance.

(6) By lapse of a reasonable time for acceptance. What is

a reasonable time must needs depend on the nature of the pro-

posal. The best illustration of the rule is the Ramsgate Hotel

Company v. Montefiore, The defendant offered to purchase

shares by letter on the 28th of June; no communication

was made to him until the 23rd of November, when he was

informed that shares were allotted to him. He declined to

accept them, and it was held that the proposal had lapsed,

without notice of revocation, by efflux of a reasonable time

for acceptance.

Chap. i. §§ 5, 6. PROPOSAL AND ACCEPTANCE. 23

(c) By failure to comply with a condition in the ptoposal

as to the mode of acceptance.

A offered to sell flour to X, the answer to he sent hy

return of the wagon which brought the offer : X sent a

letter of acceptance by mail to another place, which was not

the destination of the wagon, hariug reason to think that so

his anarwer would reach A more speedily. It was held that E«a«>D y. Hcn-

•^ ^ shaw. 4Whea-

A was not bound by an acceptance so sent. '°"' "^

{d) By death of the proposer before acceptance*

This operates as an absolute revocation, so that even

though the acceptor has acted upon the contract before he PerMeiiish.

or r ^ ^ L. J., in Dick-

knew of the death of the proposer he cannot acquire rights Doddsy^ r-

against the representatives of the proposer. ' ^^ °' *"

(e) By death of the acceptor before acceptance.

The representatives of a person to whom an offer is made

are not capable of acting upon it, if the deceased had not

accepted it in his lifetime.

§ 6. Proposal and Acceptance need not necessarily he written Contracts

or spoken, hut nmy he acted, wholly, or in part, conduct.

If A sends goods to X\ house and X accepts and uses

the goods, X will be liable on an implied contract to pay

for them. The proposal is made by sending the goods, the Han v. w^iis.

acceptance by their use or consumption, which is in fact

a promise to pay their price.

Similarly, if A ask X to work for him for hire, X may

accept simply by doing the work, unless A has in his pro-

posal prescribed any form of acceptance. Or, again, if

A allows X to work for him under such circumstances that

no reasonable man would suppose that X meant to do the

work for nothing, A will be liable to pay. The doing of paynterv.

, , , , , Williams,

the work is the proposal, the permission or acquiescence in ' c- * ^' 8'°-

the doing it is the acceptance.

And this rule has been applied to cases where there has

heen a verbal offer and acceptance which is invalid for non-

24 rORMATION OF CONTRACT. Part 11.

compliance with the requirements of the Statute of Frauds.

A part performance of such an agreement has been held to

create a binding contract to pay for so much as has been

accepted of the performance. The original agreement is

invalid ; the performance under it creates a fresh proposal ;

the acquiescence in such performance a fresh acceptance, so

Mayor v. Pyne, far as thc performance has gone ; and a new and binding

contract thus takes the place of the first invalid agreement.

But it must be remembered that contracts of this nature

are subject to the same rules as to Proposal and Acceptance,

as those which govern contracts made in words or writing.

Taylor V. If the acts which constitute the proposal by A are not

Laird, 25 L, J. . .

Exch.aasj. brought to the knowledge of X, there is no communicated

offer. If 80 soon as he knows of them he repudiates liability

in respect of them,. there is no acceptance. And the same

rule applies to cases such as the contract between a passenger

• and a railway company, which arises from an acceptance by

Henderson v. conduct of au offor compriscd in various written terms. The

Stevenson, ■*■

App;47a*^ acceptor is not bound by terms as to which he has received

no notice.