" In this case the part of Dozey was complete as he had recovered the cat, and was in the process of returning the cat to the owner Cindy. By the logic of the Carbolic smoke ball case the contract was complete and Cindy could not withdraw the offer and therefore was bound to pay the sum. Thus the revocation even in the newspaper may not have much significance because it would not have been complete against Dozey as per the Carlil case. Secondly in the instant case Cindy tells Dozey that the offer is withdrawn after he has performed his part of the offer. Therefore the revocation did not happen because the conditions of the offer have been fulfilled before revocation and hence Cindy would have to honour the offer.

References

E-Law Resources. "Dickinson v Dodds (1876) 2 Ch D. 463." Retrieved 8 November, 2012

from http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Dickinson-v-Dodds.php

England and...
[ View Full Essay]