The rejection or refusal of an offer by the person to whom it is made causes the offer to lapse. In order that an acceptance may be effective after a refusal, the offer must have been renewed by the proposer.6

So, also, a failure to comply with a condition of the offer as to the mode of acceptance, or an acceptance conditionally, or on terms varying from those offered, will cause the offer to lapse, for this is, in effect, a rejection of the offer.7 Thus, where a person offered to sell land at a certain sum, and the person to whom the offer was made replied that he would give a less sum, and afterwards, when this was refused, and when the proposer was no longer willing to adhere to his original proposal, sought to bind him by accepting at the sum first asked, it was held that the proposal to buy at a less sum than asked was a refusal of the offer, and a counter proposal, and that the original offer could not, after that, he turned into a promise by acceptance.8

4 Ante, p. 3S. and cases cited in notes 82-84.

5 MINNESOTA LINSEED OIL CO. v. COLLIER WHITE LEAD CO., 4 Dill. 431, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,635, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 24; Rams-gate Hotel Co. v. Montefiore. 1 Exch. 109; Loring v. City of Boston, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 409; ante, p. 39, and cases cited in note 85. Continuing offer. Sherley v. Peehl, 84 Wis. 46, 54 N. W. 267. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 20; Cent. Dig. §§ 67-70.

6 Tinn v. Hoffman, 29 Law T. (N. S.) 271; Hyde v. Wrench, 3 Beav. 334; Davis v. Parish, Litt. Sel. Cas. (Ky.) 153, 12 Am. Dec. 287; W. & H. M. Goulding v. Hammond, 4 C. C. A. 533, 54 Fed. 639; Sheffield Canal Co. v. Sheffield & R. Ry. Co., 3 Ry. Cas. 121, 132; Arthur v. Gordon (C. C.) 37 Fed. 558; Richardson v. Lenhard, 48 Kan. 629, 29 Pac. 1076. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 20; Cent. Dig. §§ 67-70.

7 Hyde v. Wrench, 3 Beav. 336; First Nat. Bank v. Hall, 101 U. S. 50, 25 L. Ed. 822; Minneapolis & St L. Ry. Co. v. Rolling-Mill Co., 119 U. S. 149, 7 Sup. Ct. 168, 30 L. Ed. 376; Carr v. Duval, 14 Pet. 77, 10 L. Ed. 361; Derrick v. Monette, 73 Ala. 75; Jenness v. Iron Co., 53 Me. 20; Weaver v. Burr, 31 W. Va. 736, 8 S. E. 743, 3 L. R, A. 94; Clay v. Ricketts, 66 Iowa, 362, 23 N. W. 755; Corn wells v. Krengel, 41 111. 394; Eggleston v. Wagner, 46 Mich. 610, 10 N. W. 37; Iron Works v. Douglas, 49 Ark. 355, 5 S. W. 585; Northwestern Iron Co. v. Meade, 21 Wis. 474, 94 Am. Dec. 557; First Nat. Bank v. Clark, 61 Md. 400, 48 Am. Rep. 114; Crabtree v. Opera-House Co. (C. C.) 39 Fed. 746; W. & H. M. Goulding v. Hammond, 4 C. C. A. 533, 54 Fed. 630. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 24; Cent. Dig §§ 100-103.

8 Hyde v. Wrench, 3 Beav. 336. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 24; Cent. Dig. §§ 100-103