Where there is no limitation as to time in the offer, the acceptance must be within a 'reasonable time ; Ferrier v. Storer, 63 Ia. 484, 19 N. W. 288, 50 Am. Rep. 752 ; the fol lowing day will suffice; ,1 H. L. Cas. 381; but four months will not ; Chicago & G. E. By. Co. v. Dane, 43 N. Y. 240. See 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 91, In the leading case of Cooke v. Oxley the rule was laid down that one who gives time to another to accept or reject an offer is not bound to wait until the specified time ex pires, if no consideration' has been given for the offer ; 3 Term 783; see Pothier, Contrat de Verite, No. 32 ; Craig v. Harper, 3 Cush. (Mess.) 158; Eskridge v.•Glover, 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 264, 26 Am. Dec. 344; Abbott v. Shepard, 48 N. H. 16; but in this case the offer was not by letter, and the question as to the revocation of such an offer (when the offer was made by mail) was for a long time unsettled. In McCulloch v. Ins. Co., 1 Pick. (Mass.) 278, it was held that a revo cation of an offer not then accepted takes effect from the time it is posted, although not received by the other party until after he had mailed his acceptance, and that no contract existed because, at the moment the acceptance was sent, the mind of the party offering had changed; in L. R. 6 Ex. 108; the same doctrine is laid down, but this case was doubted in 7 Ch. App. 592; and the English and American rule is now well settled that the offer cannot be withdrawn unless the withdrawal reaches the party to whom it is addressed before the letter of ac ceptance has been mailed; Tayloe v. Fire Ins. Co., 9 How. (U. S.) 390, 13 L. Ed. 187; 49 L. J. C. P. 316; 5 Q. B. D. 351. The withdrawal of the offer after the acceptance has been posted is inoperative; as a state of mind not notified cannot be regarded in deal ings between man and man, and an uncom municated revocation is, for all practical purposes, no revocation at all; 5 C. P. D.
344; 5 Q. B. D. 346; 2 App. Cas. 666; White v. Corlies, 46 N. Y. 467. The posting a letter of withdrawal is not a communication to the person to whom it is sent; 5 C. P. D. 344. See Wald. Poll. Contr. 26; Benj. Sales § 65; 6 Eng. Rul. Cas. 80. A revocation of an of fer is not complete till it is brought to the mind of the offeree; merely mailing a letter of revocation is not a revocation; [1892] 2 Ch. 27, C. A. Nor is the mere posting of a letter allotting shares in a company to an ap plicant such a communication as to bind the applicant; L. R. 11 Eq. 86; 20 L. T. R. N. S. 729.
The mailing of a letter of acceptance of an offer completes the contract ; [1892] 2 Ch. 27; after mailing an acceptance, the party cannot countermand it by a telegram though it be received before the letter of acceptance; 6 Hare 1; another view is that the Post Of fice is the agent of the sender of a letter; if so, 'a letter is not effective to close a con tract until received ; and this theory seems to be inconsistent with the case above in [1892] 2 Ch. 27; see Leake, Contracts 25.
Contracts by telegraph, under most of the authorities, follow the same rule as con tracts by mail; Hare, Contr.; U. S. v. Bab cock, 3 Dill. 571, Fed. Ca's. No. 14,485.
Payments may be made by letter at the risk of the creditor, when the debtor is au thorized, expressly or impliedly, from the usual course of business, and not otherwise ; Peake 67; 1 Ex. 477 ; Ry..& M. 149 ; Wake field v. Lithgow, 3 Mass. 249.
A false pretense by letter is made at the place where the letter is mailed ; 12 Q. B. D. 23.
See, generally, as to contracts by letter, 32 Am.. Rep. 40, n.; Wald, Poll. Contr. 26 ; Benj. Sales §§ 44, 69 ; 9 Jurid. Rev. 291; 3 Add. Contr. App. 4-13; 9 L. Q. R. 185, 265, n.; Langd. Contr. 15 ; Story, Contr. § 198. See SALE ; DECOY LETTER ; MAIL ; OFFER ; LIT ERARY PROPERTY ; TRANSCRIPT.