Revocation via a third party
It appears from the following case, Dickinson v Dodds (1876), that the
communication does not have to come from the offeror himself. Consider
the following facts.
Several issues arise from this case, and it has been criticised as leaving
unanswered various questions. Firstly, the issue of whether the source of
information needs to be reliable. If not, this could obviously put the offeree
at a disadvantage. Treitel, a leading authority on contract law, has suggested
that the finding in Dickinson v Dodds is really that revocation is valid when
made by any reliable third party.
Secondly, it is clearly possible to revoke an offer even though a time limit
is specified, providing this is communicated to the offeree. The time limit
merely has the effect of terminating the offer if it has not already been
revoked. Authority for this comes from Routledge v Grant (1828) and was
discussed in 1975 by the Law Commission (Working Paper No. 60, ‘Firm
Offers’). It seems particularly hard on an offeree who has depended on the
offer being open and has taken action based on this. Obviously if money
had been paid to keep the option open, the situation would be different, as
there would be valid consideration.
Revocation in unilateral contracts
Normally a general offer made ‘to the whole world’ can be withdrawn by
giving the withdrawal as much publicity as the original offer, and of the
same type. It will normally be accepted that the revocation cannot
practically be brought to the attention of every reader of the original offer.
18 Contract law
Dickinson v Dodds (1876)
Dodds offered to sell a house to Dickinson, the offer to be left open
until Friday. Dickinson decided to buy the house on the Thursday, but
during that afternoon heard from another person that Dodds had agreed
to sell the house to someone else. On the Thursday evening Dickinson
nevertheless delivered a letter of acceptance to Dodds. It was held that
Dickinson’s acceptance was not valid, as he knew ‘as plainly and
clearly as if Dodds had told him in so many words’ that the offer had
been revoked. The courts placed importance on the fact that there was
no ‘meeting of minds’, as Dickinson did not attempt to accept until
after the time when he knew that Dodds did not want to sell to him.Is there any reasonable way in which the parties and the courts could decide
who is a ‘reliable’ source?