Termination of offer

1)By revocation
Byrne & Co. v Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880)
[This version of the judgment has been edited by Dr Robert N MolesUnderlining where it occurs is for editorial emphasis]
LR 5 CPD 344, Common Pleas Division
The parties exchanged the following correspondence:
1 October: D posted a letter to P offering to sell tinplate.8 October: D posted letter revoking the offer.11 October: P telegraphed acceptance of the offer.15 October: P confirmed acceptance by letter.20 October: P received D's letter of revocation.
At what time would the revocation have taken effect?
HELD - Lindley J
This case raises 2 questions:
1. Is revocation effective prior to its actual communication to the other party?
2. Does posting a letter of revocation constitute communication of it?
A state of mind not notified cannot be regarded in dealings. Whilst it is well accepted that an acceptance takes effect from posting, yet there is no authority to say that a revocation is also effective from posting.
The principle is that the writer of an offer impliedly accepts that a posted answer will be sufficient - and that the post office will act as agent for the purpose. Therefore, delivery to the post office is delivery to the other party. But this principle is not applicable to the withdrawal of an offer. There is no authority or principle that withdrawal is effective before it is received. So the withdrawal was ineffective and the contract completed on 11 October.
Any other view would lead to great inconvenience. Nobody could act on an acceptance until a further stage had been gone through of confirming that a revocation had not been sent to them in the meantime.

Dickinson v Dodds (1876)
2 Ch D 463 Court of Appeal UK
D delivered to P a document stating "I hereby agree to sell to P [a property] for £800-00. This offer to be left over to 12 June 9am."
11 June: P was told by a third party that D was negotiating to sell the property to someone else. P then took to D's house a formal written acceptance of the offer. It was given to a member of the family who forgot to give it to D.
12 June: Before 9am, P gave D a duplicate of the letter of acceptance. D said to P, “you are too late, the property has already been sold”.
The Trial Judge held that there was a binding contract of sale between the parties and ordered specific performance. D appealed.
HELD James LJ
Although the document said "I hereby agree to sell ...", it was only an offer. The fact that it was "left over" until 12 June makes this clear. There was no consideration to keep the property unsold until 12 June, despite the fact that one or maybe both of them thought that at least there was some obligation. "It is clearly settled law, on one of the clearest principles of law, that this promise, being a mere nudum pactum (promise without consideration) was not binding."
There is no authority which requires an express retraction. P knew that D no longer wished to sell the property to him. Prior to the purported acceptance of the offer, P knew that D had revoked it. This knowledge made the revocation effective.
[It may be argued that D's conduct appears far from acceptable. If both parties thought that D was bound, and this is what comes through from the report, then why were their intentions not enforced?

2.By rejection
Tinn v Hoffman (1873)
Acceptance was requested by return of post. Honeyman J said: "That does not mean exclusively a reply by letter or return of post, but you may reply by telegram or by verbal message or by any other means not later than a letter written by return of post."

3.By lapse of time

4By death