Skip to main content

Revocation of Proposal

QUESTION 5

Revocation of Proposal – Detailed Analysis (LLB Exam Perspective)


INTRODUCTION

Under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the term revocation means withdrawal of an offer by the proposer.
Section 5 deals with revocation of proposals.
A proposal can be revoked any time before the acceptance becomes complete against the proposer.

In simple words, the offeror can withdraw the offer as long as the offeree has not completed acceptance.


MEANING OF REVOCATION

Revocation means that the person who made the offer decides to take it back before it turns into a binding contract.

Example:
A offers to sell his mobile to B. Before B accepts the offer, A withdraws it.
This is a valid revocation.


ESSENTIAL POINTS ABOUT REVOCATION (SECTION 5)

1. Revocation possible before acceptance becomes complete

Acceptance becomes complete against the proposer when the offeree sends it (for example, posts the letter or sends the message).
Therefore, the proposer must revoke the offer before that stage.

2. Revocation must be communicated

According to Section 4, communication of revocation is complete only when it reaches the offeree.

3. Revocation must follow a reasonable mode

Section 6 explains the valid methods of revocation.


METHODS OF REVOCATION (SECTION 6)

(a) Revocation by notice

The proposer directly informs the offeree that the offer is withdrawn.
Communication must reach the offeree.

(b) Revocation by lapse of time

If no time is specified, the offer automatically ends after a reasonable period.
If a time limit is fixed, the offer ends once that time expires.

(c) Revocation by non-fulfilment of condition precedent

If the offer requires the offeree to perform a condition before acceptance (for example, submit documents or a deposit), and the offeree fails to do so, the offer is revoked.

(d) Revocation by death or insanity of the proposer

If the offeree comes to know that the proposer has died or has become insane, the offer ends immediately.

(e) Revocation by counter-offer

If the offeree makes a new offer on different terms, the original offer ends automatically.
A counter-offer destroys the original proposal.

Example:
A offers to sell a car for Rs. 2,00,000.
B replies, “I can pay Rs. 1,50,000.”
This is a counter-offer, and the original offer ends.


IMPORTANT CASE LAWS FOR REVOCATION

1. Byrne & Co. v. Van Tienhoven (1880)

Principle:
Revocation is valid only when it is communicated to the offeree.
Posting a revocation letter is not enough unless the offeree receives it.

2. Henthorn v. Fraser (1892)

Principle:
Revocation must be made within a reasonable time.
If it reaches the offeree too late, it is not effective.

3. Ramsgate Victoria Hotel v. Montefiore (1866)

Principle:
Revocation by lapse of time.
An offer may automatically end after an unreasonable delay.

4. Hyde v. Wrench (1840)

Principle:
A counter-offer destroys the original offer.
Once a counter-offer is made, the original offer cannot be accepted later.

5. Dickinson v. Dodds (1876)

Principle:
Revocation can be communicated through a reliable third person.
Direct communication from the offeror is not mandatory.


CONCLUSION

Revocation of proposal is an important principle in contract law.
Section 5 allows the proposer to revoke the offer any time before acceptance becomes complete against him.
Revocation must be properly communicated and can take place through notice, lapse of time, failure of condition, death, or counter-offer.
Once revocation is validly made, no contract can come into existence.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

UPSI Syllabus 2025 & Exam pattern 2025

UP SI 2025 Exam Pattern Subject Questions Marks General Hindi 40 100 Law/Constitution & General Knowledge 40 100 Numerical & Mental Ability Test 40 100 Mental Aptitude/Intelligence/Reasoning 40 100 Total 160 400 Exam Mode : Online (CBT) Duration : 2 hours (120 minutes) Negative Marking : No Qualifying Marks : Minimum 35% in each subject and 50% overall Subject-Wise Syllabus 1. General Hindi समास, संधि, वाक्यांश के लिए एक शब्द पर्यायवाची, विलोम शब्द मुहावरे और लोकोक्तियाँ रस, अलंकार, छंद वाक्य संशोधन, वर्तनी अपठित गद्यांश (Comprehension) हिंदी साहित्य के प्रमुख लेखक और रचनाएँ 2. Law, Constitution & General Knowledge A. General Knowledge भारत का इतिहास और स्वतंत्रता संग्राम भूगोल (भारत और विश्व) विज्ञान और तकनीक करेंट अफेयर्स पुरस्कार, किताबें और लेखक महत्वपूर्ण राष्ट्रीय/अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संगठन खेलकूद, राजनीति, अर्थव्यवस्था B. Indian Constitution & Law संविधान की विशेषताएँ मौलिक अधिकार और कर्तव...

Arrest under BNSS 2023: Grounds, Sections, and Case Laws

Bare act provision  Arrest by private person [section 40] Section 40 lays down the circumstances  when a private person can arrest and procedure on such arrest Circumstances in which a private person can arrest: Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested who in the presence of private person. i) commits a non - bailable and           cognizable offence. ii) Any proclaimed offender. 2: Arrest by magistrate section 41 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023), enacted to replace the colonial-era Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), brings a renewed focus on balancing citizen rights and policing powers . Arrest, being a powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement, is rightly placed under scrutiny in BNSS 2023. Let’s break down what "arrest" means under this new law, the grounds under which it can occur, and the protective safeguards embedded within. What is Arrest Arrest is the legal restraint of a person’s libe...

Smith v Hughes (1959): A Landmark Case on Interpreting the Law

Smith v Hughes (1959): Introduction The case of Smith v Hughes (1959) is one of the most iconic examples in English law that demonstrates the Mischief Rule of statutory interpretation. At first glance, it may seem like a simple case involving a street solicitor (a prostitute), but it ended up clarifying how judges should interpret the true purpose of a law. Facts of the Case Mrs. Smith, the defendant, was a prostitute. However, unlike many others, she wasn’t soliciting from the street. Instead, she operated from inside her apartment in London. She would call out or attract clients through her window or by tapping on the glass, facing the public street below. She was charged under Section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 , which says: “It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.” Now here's the twist: Smith argued she wasn’t in the street , so she claimed the law didn’t apply to her ...