An offer according to Law of Contract Act section 2(1)(a) is when a person signifies

to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to

obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence. And in section 2(1)(b) of
law of contract act Acceptance happens when the person whom the proposal is made
signifies his assent thereto. After acceptance to the offer, the offer then becomes a
promise.

The statement in quotations above is a comparison of two different phenomenons

that are similar in a certain way. And offer and acceptance are being referred here as
a matchstick and the effect it has to gunpowder because of the effect an acceptance
does to an offer. In the Anson law of contract he further says that the matchstick and
train and gunpowder produce something that cannot be recalled or undone the same
to the state after there is an acceptance of an offer: it cannot be undone. The only
way that the matchstick and gunpowder effect can be terminated is either the powder
being left dump or the man who laid the train removed the gunpowder before the
match was applied. In discussing the above question the ways of terminating an offer
will be brought into content.

In general, there are various ways in the law of contract act and case laws explaining
on how to terminate an offer. The following are the ways:

Lapse of time: according to the law of contract act section 6(b) [CAP 345 R.E. 2002]
it says an offer can be revoked, “by the lapse of time prescribed in such proposal for
its acceptance, or, if no time is prescribed, by the lapse of reasonable time, without
communication of an acceptance” What is a reasonable time is a question of fact
depending on the circumstances of each case. In the case of C.A. INDUSTRIES
LTD. Vs. POWYSLAND B.E.A. LTD [1953] E.A.P.L.R. 121. It was concluded
that the test is not whether the delay before communication of acceptance is
unreasonable or not, but whether a reasonable time has elapsed between the date of
the offer and the communication of acceptance.

By notice of revocation; an offer can also be terminated or revoked by notice of

revocation by the proposer to the other party, before acceptance of the said party.
Revocation of an offer must be communicated to the offeree and it becomes effective
when it comes to the knowledge of the latter. In BYRNE Vs. VAN TIENHOVEN
(1880)5C.P.D. 344, whereby the defendants posted a letter in Cardiff on 1st October,
addressed to the plaintiffs in New York, offering to sell 1,000 boxes of tinplates. On
8th October they posted a letter revoking the offer. On 11th October the plaintiffs
telegraphed their acceptance and confirmed it by a letter posted on 15th October.
On 20th October the letter of revocation reached the plaintiffs. The Court held that
the revocation was inoperative until 20th October when the notice of revocation
came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

By death or Insanity; this can also be a way of termination of an offer if an only if,
the fact of death or insanity comes to the knowledge of the acceptor before
acceptance; in accordance to the law of contract act section 6(d) [CAP 345 R.E.
2002]. There may be instances where the offeree accepts the offer in ignorance of
the fact that the offeror is dead at the time of acceptance, In such instances it has
been suggested that: An offeree who does not know of the offeror's death should be
entitled to accept the offer, unless the offer on its true construction indicates the
contrary, example: where the offeror's personality is a conditional precedent in the
transaction as seen the case REYNODS Vs. ATHERTON[1921] 125L.T690,
whereby an offer to sell shares was made in 1911 to directors of a company. An
attempt to accept was made in the same year by the survivors of the persons who
were directors in 1911 and by the personal representatives of those who have died.
The perpetuated acceptance was held to be ineffective and Warrington L.J said “the
offer having been made to a living person before the offer is accepted. The offer was
not meant to be made to a dead person or his executors and the offer ceases to be an
offer and is not capable of acceptance”.

Failure to accept or fulfill a conditional precedent to acceptance; In sometimes offers

may be accompanied with conditions therefore the offeree must fulfill the conditions
stipulated in accepting the offer since failure to fulfill it the offer come to an end.
The same position was explained under Section 6(c) of the Law of Contract Act
[CAP 345 R.E. 2002] provides that a proposal is revoked by the failure of the
acceptor to fulfill a condition precedent to acceptance as seen in the case STELLA
MASHA Vs TOL [2000] TLR on May 1999 the defendant advertises a tender of
selling its residential houses located at Msasani peninsula, Stella decided to submit
her tender to buy one of the houses. The defendant wrote to the plaintiff that the
houses will be sold at the premises of TSH 55 million the plaintiff was paid the
amount of 17,500,000/= by cheque and the irrevocable bank guarantee of tsh
37,500,000/=, the defendant does not accept the bank guarantee and refused to offer
the plaintiff the house. The high court held that the defendant was not guilty because
paying in cash was a conditional precedent and not in cheque or by installements.

Counter Offer and Rejection; when the offeree rejects an offer that makes an offer
to an end automatically but if the offeree qualify or amends the terms of an offer
then will be making the offer to be counter offer hence to be ineffective. The same
position was discussed in the case of HYDE V. WRENCH (1840) 334, whereby
the defendant in this case (Wrench) on the 6th June offered to sell an estate to the
plaintiff for $ 1000. On 8th June in reply the plaintiff (Hyde) made an offer of $950,
which was refused by the by the defendant on 27 th June. Finally on 29th June the
plaintiff wrote that he was now willing to pay $1000 as proposed by the defendant.
However the defendant refused to accept $1000.The plaintiff went to court for
breach of contract. It was held that by his letter on 8th June the plaintiff had rejected
the original offer and he was no longer able to revive it by changing his mind
tendering an acceptance. Consequently no contract existed between the plaintiff and
Defendant.

With the above reasons therefore, an offer or proposal can hereby be revoked. And
acceptance of the offer should be communicated to the offerer and should come to
his knowledge for the contract to be legal binding. However the terms of an offer or
proposal have to match the terms of the acceptance the contract will be considered
null and void.