Story Case

The Turkish government wished to buy some cannon from the Hupps. The latter made the Turkish representative an offer for some new style cannon, but the representative was compelled to get permission from his government before he could accept the offer.

The parties made the following arrangement: It would require approximately twenty-four hours for the offer to be telegraphed to Turkey and for the reply to be telegraphed back. Therefore, the Hupps agreed to keep the offer open until noon of the following day and the Turkish representative gave them 100 marks for the option.

Because of some delay in the transmission of the telegrams, the message of acceptance from Turkey did not reach the Hupps until fifteen minutes past noon of the next day. The Hupps refused to be bound by the acceptance, because of the delay. The Turkish repre-rentative insisted that the delay was so slight that it could not cause any injury and that, therefore, the acceptance was binding. The Turkish representative brought suit and the Hupps defended on the ground that the offer terminated at noon of the next day. Will the Hupps lose the suit?

Ruling Court Case. Maclay Vs. Harvey, Volume 90 Illinois Reports, Page 525; Volume 32 American Reports, Page 35

Harvey, the defendant in this action, desired to secure a milliner for the spring season. He wrote a letter to Miss Maclay, the plaintiff in this action, in which he offered to engage her on certain terms for the season. In the letter, in which he made the offer, he requested a reply by return mail. Miss Maclay received the letter on the 22nd of March; the following day she wrote a card in which she accepted the offer; she handed it to a boy to mail; he neglected to post it until the 25th of March. Harvey, failing to hear from her by return mail, secured the services of another young lady for the season in question, and refused to consider the application of Miss Maclay for employment. Thereupon, she brought this action, claiming damages for the breach of her alleged contract.

Harvey, however, claimed that there was no contract, because she had not accepted within the time limit which he had proposed.

Decision

It is the privilege of one making an offer to set a limit upon the time within which it way be accepted. Unless the offeree complies with the terms of the offer, by accepting within that time limit, the offer automatically expires. Here Harvey expressly requested a reply by return mail; although Miss Maclay believed she was accepting by return mail, her own agent, the boy, was responsible for the delay and it was her misfortune that the letter was not posted. Since the acceptance was too late, no contract resulted. Therefore, judgment was given for the defendant, Harvey.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

We have seen that an offer may be made for a certain time only; that it will lapse after a reasonable time; or that it may be revoked at any time before acceptance, unless the offer is made under seal or supported by a consideration; or it may be revoked by death of the person making it; or a conditional acceptance operates as a rejection of the offer. If the offer terminates for any of the foregoing reasons, the situation of the parties is exactly as if no offer had ever been made. Consequently, an acceptance under any of the foregoing circumstances imposes no obligation upon the person who made the offer; and confers no right upon the person who made the offer; and confers no right upon the person who seeks to accept the offer now terminated. In the Story Case, the Hupps expressly stated the time within which the offer was to be accepted; since it was not accepted within the time stated, the offer terminated; and the attempt to accept thereafter, by the Turkish representative was of no effect and they can recover nothing from the Hupps.