An offer, though coupled with a promise to hold it open for acceptance for a specified time, may nevertheless be revoked or withdrawn before the time has expired, provided it is not under seal and there is no consideration for the promise to hold the offer open.92

320. The addition of a new term to an offer is a revocation of that offer. Travis v. Insurance Co., 104 Fed. 4S6, 43 C. C. A. 653. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § .19; Cent. Dig. §§ 57-60.

87 National Refining Co. v. Miller, 1 S. D. 548, 47 N. W. 962. And see Challenge Wind & Feed Mill Co. v. Kerr, 93 Mich. 328, 53 N. W. 555; Harvey v. Duffey, 99 Cal. 401, 33 Pac. 897. See "Contracts" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 19; Cent. Dig. §§ 57-60.

88 Burton v. Shotwell, 13 Bush (Ky.) 271. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 19; Cent. Dig. §§ 57-60.

89 Anson, Cont. (8th Ed.) 32.

90 Xenos v. Wickham, L. R. 2 H. L. 296; Doe d. Garnons, 5 B. & C. 671, 29 Rev. Rep. 355; Butler & Baker's Case, 3 Coke, 26b. See, also, Roberts v. Security Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 111. See '-Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 19; Cent. Dig. §§ 57-60.

91 See preface 29 Rev. Rep. v-ix (Sir Frederick Pollock); 16 Yale L, J. 155; Ashley, Cont. 254 et seq.

92 IDE v. LEISER, 10 Mont. 5, 24 Pac. 695, 24 Am. St Rep. 17, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 20; Cooke v. Oxley, 3 Term R. 653 (as to this case, see post, p. 43, note 1); Routledge v. Grant, 4 Bing. 653; Head v. Diggon, 3 Man. & R. 97; Stevenson v. McLean, 5 Q. B. Div. 351; Dickinson v. Dodds, 2 Ch. Div. 463; Chicago & G. E. R. Co. v. Dane, 43 N. Y. 240; Stensgaard

Cases of this kind arise where a person gives another the "refusal" of land or goods for a certain time, or an option to buy. If the promise to keep an offer open for a specified time is under seal, or is supported by a valuable consideration - as where money is paid or promised for the option or refusal - the promise constitutes a contract in itself, and, of course, is binding.93 A failure to keep such an offer open constitutes a breach of contract for which an action for damages will lie. As to whether the offeree may become entitled to specific performance of the contract of sale by acceptance after the offer has been withdrawn, in violation of the contract to keep it open, there is a conflict of authority. Some courts hold that, although the act of revocation itself constitutes a breach of contract, there can be no acceptance of an offer that has in fact been revoked, and therefore there is no subsisting contract of sale which may be enforced.9* Other cases, however, representing the weight of authority, regard the option, where it is under seal or supported by a consideration, as a contract to sell or convey upon condition, and therefore as entitling the offeree to specific performance upon compliance with the condition, as by notice of acceptance of the offer to sell within the time stipulated in the option.95

v. Smith, 43 Minn. 11, 44 N. W. 669, 19 Am. St Rep. 205; Coleman v. Apple-garth, 68 Md. 21, 11 Atl. 284, 6 Am. St. Rep. 417; Eskridge v. Glover, 5 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 264, 26 Am. Dec. 344; Larmon v. Jordan, 56 111. 206; Weiden v.' Woodruff, 38 Mich. 130; Klee v. Grant, 4 Misc. Rep. 88, 23 N. Y. Supp. 855; Connor v. Renneker, 25 S. C. 514; Sault Ste. M., L. & I. Co. v. Simons (C. C.) 41 Fed. 835; Weaver v. Burr, 31 W. Va. 736, 8 S. E. 743, 3 L. R. A. 94; Brown v. Savings Union, 134 Cal. 448, 66 Pac. 592; Corbett v. Cronkhite, 239 111. 9, 87 N. E. 874; post, p. 148. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 19; Cent. Dig. §§ 57-60.

93 WATKINS v. ROBERTSON, 105 Va. 269, 54 S. E. 33, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1194, 115 Am. St. Rep. 880. Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 43 [quot. Clark on Contracts, (2d Ed.) 33]; Grabenhorst v. Nicodemus, 42 Md. 236; Stitt v. Huidekoper, 17 Wall. 384, 21 L. Ed. 644; Bradford v. Foster, 87 Tenn. 4, 9 S. W. 195; Chadsey v. Condley, 62 Kan. 853, 62 Pac. 663. See "Sales," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 24, 25; Cent. Dig. §§ 49-52; "Specific Performance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. § 178; "Vendor and Purchaser," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 18; Cent. Dig. § 23.

94 See Litz v. Goosling, 93 Ky. 185, 19 S. W. 527, 21 L. R. A. 127; Graybill v. Brugh, 89 Va. 895, 17 S. E. 558, 21 L. R. A. 133, 37 Am. St. Rep. 894. See "Specific Performance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. § 178.

95 WATKINS v. ROBERTSON, 105 Va. 269, 54 S. E. 33, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1194, 115 Am. St. Rep. 8S0, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 43 coverruling Gray-bill v. Brugh, supraj; Willard v. Tayloe, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 557, 19 L. Ed. 501; O'Brien v. Bolond, 166 Mass. 481, 44 N. E. 602; Mansfield v. Hodgdon, 147 Mass. 304, 17 N. E. 544; McMillan v. Ames, 33 Minn. 257, 22 N. W. 612; Hayes v. O'Brien, 119 111. 403, 37 N. E3. 73, 23 L. R. A. 555; 9 Cyc. Law & Proc. 287; Zimmerman v. Brown (N. J. Ch.) 36 Atl. 675; Chadsey v. Condley,