_A great many contracts are made by correspondence._ A person writes a
letter to another offering to sell him merchandise at a stated price.
The other replies saying that he will accept the offer. Is a contract
made at the time of writing his letter and putting it into the
post-office, or not until it is received by the person who made the
offer? The law in this country is that a contract is made between two
persons in that way as soon as the answer is written and put into the
post-office beyond the reach of the acceptor.
The post-office usually is the agent of the person who uses it, but
when a person sends an offer to another by mail the post-office is
regarded a little differently. It is the agent of the person who sends
the offer and also his agent in bringing back the reply. Consequently,
when this is put into the hands of the agent the law regards the
offerer as bound by his offer. In like manner, if a creditor should
send a letter to his debtor asking him to send a cheque for his debt
and he should comply, the post-office would be the agent of the
creditor in carrying that cheque, because he requested his debtor to
use this means in sending his cheque to him. But when a request is not
made and a debtor sends a cheque on his own account, the post-office
is his agent for carrying it to his creditor.
A person making an offer by letter can of course withdraw it through
the telephone or telegraph if he likes at any time before the letter
has been received by the other party. Suppose the price of things is
rising and A, finding that his goods are also advancing, should, after
making an offer of some of them by letter, send a telegram stating
what he had written and withdrawing his offer. This would be a proper
thing for him to do. If, on the other hand, A's offer had been
received by B before his withdrawal and accepted, then A would be
bound by it.
Can B, after mailing his letter of acceptance and before it has been
received by A, withdraw his acceptance? No, he cannot--for the reason
above given, that the post-office is the agent of A, in carrying both
his offer and B's reply. If this were not so, if the post-office were
the agent of B in sending his reply, then of course it could be
revoked or withdrawn at any time before it reached A.
Suppose A should send an offer and afterward a withdrawal and the
withdrawal should be received first. Notwithstanding this, however, if
the person to whom the offer was sent should accept the offer, could
he not bind A? One can readily see that all the proof would be in the
possession of B, the acceptor. If he were a man without regard for his
honour and insisted that he received the offer first, A might be
unable to offer any proof to the contrary and fail to win his case
should B sue him. But the principle of law is plain enough; the only
difficulty is in its application. Doubtless cases of this kind
constantly happen in which the acceptor has taken advantage of the
other to assent to an offer actually received after its withdrawal.
Suppose B should in fact receive A's offer first in consequence of the
neglect of the telegraph company to deliver A's message of withdrawal
promptly, which if delivered as it should have been would have reached
B before the letter containing the offer, what then? A doubtless
would be bound by his offer, but perhaps he could look to the
telegraph company for any loss growing out of the affair. If he could
show that he had been injured by fulfilling the contract the telegraph
company might be obliged to pay this.
Let us carry the inquiry a little further. Suppose the messenger on
receiving the telegram took it to B's office and it was closed and he
made diligent inquiry concerning B's whereabouts and was unable to
find him. Suppose he had gone off to a horse race or to a football
game, would it be the duty of the messenger boy to hunt him up at one
of these places? By no means. If B was not at his place of business
when he ought to have been, the company would not be bound to deliver
the message to him elsewhere, except at his house, unless he had left
a special direction with the company concerning its delivery.
Generally a telegraph company states very clearly its mode of
delivering messages and the time when it will do so, the place, etc.,
to which it will take them, and it is not obliged to hunt all over
creation to find the person to whom a message is addressed. That would
be a very unreasonable rule to apply. Therefore, if the company did
its duty A could not recover anything from it. Would A, then, it may
be asked, be obliged to fulfil his contract with B? He has sent his
withdrawal, which if delivered in time would have been received by B
before the letter containing the offer. B, however, is away from his
place of business, and perhaps is where he ought not to be--perhaps he
is playing poker or doing something worse--ought A under such
circumstances to be held by his offer? This is a closer question and
one that we will leave our readers to think over. Surely A would have
a strong reason for claiming that he ought not to be held under such
conditions.
A person who makes an offer cannot turn it into an acceptance. An old
uncle offered by letter to buy his nephew's horse for $100, adding:
"If I hear no more about the matter I consider the horse as mine." The
uncle, not hearing from the nephew, proceeded to take the horse. At
this stage of the proceedings, however, the nephew was not inclined to
suffer his good old uncle to make the contract entirely himself, and
refused to give up the horse. The court said that one person could not
do all the contracting himself, and this is what he virtually
undertook to do. If a person could, by correspondence or otherwise,
make a contract in this manner, one can readily see the dangers that
might follow. Some positive act must be put forth by the other party
showing or indicating his assent before it will be regarded as given.
A person, in truth, is not obliged to pay any attention to an offer of
this kind.
Rewards are often made. They are found almost every day among the
newspaper advertisements. These are binding under various conditions.
An interesting question has been raised in the case of a runaway horse
whose owner has made an offer to any finder who returns him. Suppose a
person at the time of catching the animal did not know of the reward
but does know of it when returning the beast to his owner; can he
claim the reward? This question has somewhat puzzled the judges, but
the more recent opinion is that the catcher can claim the reward like
a person who knew at the time of stopping the pleasure of the runaway.
Of course, there is no question concerning these rewards when they are
known at the time of acting on them.
In one of the cases tried not long since, an old farmer offered a
reward of $15 to any one who would find the person who had stolen his
harness and also $100 to the man who would prosecute the thief. The
harness, in truth, was worth not even this small sum and the thief
still less. Yet he was caught and prosecuted, and then the prosecutor
and finder claimed the rewards. The farmer's excitement had cooled off
by this time and he was not so loud and liberal as he was at the time
of finding out his loss. He refused to pay, saying that he did not
really mean to offer these sums as rewards, and the court decided in
his favour, declaring that his offer of reward could not be regarded
strictly as one, but rather "as an explosion of wrath." In another
case a man's house was burning up and his wife was inside, and he
offered any one $5000 who would go in and bring her out--"dead or
alive." A brave fellow went in and rescued her. Then he claimed the
reward. Was the man who made the offer obliged to pay, and could he
not have escaped by insisting that this was simply "an explosion of
affection" and not strictly an offer or promise of reward? He tried to
hold on to his money, but the court held that this was an offer he
must pay. Possibly after the recovery of his wife his valuation of her
had changed somewhat from what it was while his house was burning up.
One or two more cases may be given. Some persons who prepared
"carbolic-smoke balls" offered to pay £100 to any person who
contracted influenza after having used one of the balls in the manner
clearly set forth and for a stated period. This offer was in the form
of a newspaper advertisement. A person bought one of them and followed
carefully all the directions about its use. The influenza, though, did
not disappear as advertised, so he sued to recover the offer; and,
having proved clearly that he had complied faithfully with the
directions and had not been cured, the court said that the owners must
pay up and compelled them to give him the £100 offered.
Another case may be briefly mentioned. A offered to sell B his farm
for $1000. B offered $950, which offer was declined. Then B offered
to pay $1000. By that time A had changed his mind and declined to
accept B's offer. Then B sued to get the farm, offering to pay the
money; but the court held that B had declined A's offer and
consequently that, as A had not made any other offer, there was no
contract.
Finally, it may be added that the phrase "by return mail" does not
always mean by the next mail, although the person to whom the offer is
made cannot delay his answer long. On the other hand, the person to
whom such a letter may be addressed can bind the other by an
acceptance very quickly after the receipt of the offer, although not
literally by the first mail going out.