r 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revoked or withdrawn at any time before it reached A.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 footbal