Though ordinarily the offeror in a unilateral contract can find out for himself whether the act which he has requested has been done, in some cases the act is of such a character that the offeror cannot easily determine whether it has been done unless he is notified by the promisee. It is settled law that whenever in a bilateral contract the completion of his performance by one party is peculiarly within his own knowledge, a condition is implied in fact requiring him to notify the other party of his performance, as a condition precedent to holding the latter liable.11 A corresponding need for implication arises in the case of an offer requesting performance peculiarly within the knowledge of the offeree. Notice in such a case, however, is not a necessary element in the creation of the contract. If this were true the offeror might revoke his offer after performance of the act requested, but prior to notification. Such a result would be unjust, and is required neither by the necessities of the case nor the authorities.12 The contract is complete on the performance of the act but is subject to a condition subsequent that if notice of the performance of the act is not given within a reasonable time by the promisee, the promisor is freed from obligation.

Pike, 16 Ind. 140; Hayden v. Souger, 56 Ind. 42, 26 Am. Rep. 1; Kelly v. Stone, 94 Ia. 316, 62 N. W. 842; Springfield v. Harris, 107 Mass. 532; First Nat. Bank v. Watkina, 164 Mass. 385,28 N. E. 275; Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496, 37 N. E. 665; Niedermeyet v. Curators of University of Missouri, 61 Mo. App. 654; Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 649, 28 Am. Dec. 372; Smith c. Dann, 6 Hill, 544; Todd v. Weber, 95 N. Y. 181, 191, 47 Am. Rep. 20; Miller v. McKenise, 96 N. Y. S76, 47 Am. Rep. 85; Fry v. Insurance Co., 40 Ohio St. 103; Cooper v. Altimus, 62

Pa. 486; Patton's Ex. v. Hassinger, 69 Pa. 311; Reif v. Paige, 55 Wis. 496, 13 N. W. 473, 42 Am. Rep. 731.

10 "If the person making the offer expressly or impliedly intimates in his offer that it will be sufficient to act on the proposal without communicating acceptance of it to himself, performance of the condition is a sufficient acceptance without notification." Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 256, 269, per Bowen, L. J.

11 See infra, Sec.893.

12 See the next section.

This principle has been applied most frequently to guaranties. Of course where an offer of guaranty requests as consideration a promise on the part of the offeree, unquestionably communication is necessary to make the bilateral contract proposed; but generally the guarantor in terms agrees to guarantee payment for goods, services or money if given a third person, requesting merely the giving of credit, and not an antecedent promise to give it. The law concerning the necessity of notice of performance of an act thus requested as consideration for such an offer of guaranty is indeed in much confusion. In some jurisdictions the rule ordinarily applicable to unilateral contract is held controlling and no notice is required.13 But more commonly notice is held requisite,14 though difficult and technical distinctions are often attempted in the cases know that a contract has been made. But where the promise is in consideration of an act to be done, it becomes binding upon the doing of the act so far that the promise cannot be affected by a subsequent withdrawal of it, if within a reasonable time afterward he notifies the promisor." 16 That the performance of the act requested by the guarantor completes the contract, and that notice if necessary at all is necessary only as a condition subsequent, is shown by the fact that if notice is not given within a reasonable time, the guarantor may waive his defense and incur liability by a subsequent promise to pay,17 or the necessity of notice may be waived in the offer.18 If an element necessary for the formation of a contract had been omitted, this result could not be reached. No subsequent gratuitous promise can vitalize an agreement which never became a contract.19 Jurisdictions which require notice of the acceptance of a guaranty generally hold that such notice must be given in case of a continuing guaranty within a reasonable time after the close of all the transactions under the guaranty.20 If an acceptance analogous to that

12Somersull v. Banieby, Cro. Jac. 287; Oxley p. Young, 2 H. Bl. 613; Lyssght p. Walker, 5 Bligh (N. 8.), 1,19, 22-23;Oldershaw v.King, 2 H. A N. 399, 403, 517; White p. Woodward, 5 C. B. 810, 814, 816; Jays, Ltd., v. Sala, 14 T. L. R, 461; McCarroll v. Red Diamond Clothing Co., 106 Ark. 443, 151 S. W. 1012; Reese p. W. T. Raleigh Medical Co., 115 Ark. 606, 172 S. W. 820; Fisk v. Stone, 6 Dak. 36; Carman v. Ellege, 40 Iowa, 409; Case v. Howard, 41 Iowa, 470; Davis Co. v. Mills, 55 Iowa, 543, 8 N. W. 356, (bat see German Sav. Bank p. Drake Roofing Co., 112 Ia. 184,83 N. W. 960, 51 L. R. A. 758, 84 Am. St. Rep. 335); Platter p. Green, 28 Kane. 252; F. W. Heitmann Co. p. Kansas City etc. R. Co, 136 La. 825, 67 So. 895; Hibernis Bank ft Trust Co. p. Cancienne, 140 La. 969, 74 So. 267, L. R. A. 1917 D, 402; Boyd p. Snyder, 49 Md. 325; Booth v. Irving Nat. Exch. Bank, 116 Md. 608, 676 (see also Heyman p. Dooley, 77 Md. 162, 26 Atl. 117); Crittenden v. Fiske, 46 Mich. 70, 8 N. W. 714, 41 Am. Rep. 146; State

Nat. Bank p. Wernicke, 185 Mich. 281, 151 N. W. 1033 (cp. De Cremer p. Anderson, 113 Mich. 578, 71 N. W. 1090); Wilcox v. Draper, 12 Neb. 138, 10 N. W. 579, 41 Am. Rep. 763; Klos-terman v. Olcott, 25 Neb. 382,41N. W. 250; Whitney v. Groot, 24 Wend. 81; Smith v. Dann, 6 Hill, 543; City Nat. Bank v. Phelps, 86 N. Y. 484; Niles Co. p. Reynolds, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 24, 38 N. Y. Supp. 1028; American Woolen Co. p. Moskowitz, 159 N. Y. App. Div. 382, 144 N. Y. Supp. 532; Powers p. Bumcratz, 12 Oh. St. 273 (overruling dictum in Taylor v. Wetmore, 10 Ohio, 490); Wise v. Miller, 45 Oh. St. 388, 14 N. E. 218; Masters p. Boyes, 44 Okl. 526, 145 Pac. 363; Bright p. Mo-Knight, 1 Sneed, 168; Yancey p. Brown, 3 Sneed, 89; Wells, Fargo ft Co. p. Davis, 2 Utah, 411 (but see Lester Piano Co. p. Romney, 41 Utah, 436, 126 Pac. 325); MeNaughton p. Conkling, 9 Wis. 316.

14Davia v. Wells, 104 U. S. 159, 26 L. Ed. 686; Davis Sewing Machine Co. p. Richards, 115 U. S. 524, 29 L. Ed. 480, 6 Sup. Ct. 173 (cf. United as to when notice of assent is necessary to hold the guarantor and when it is not. Decisions holding notice requisite often fail to distinguish the reason for the necessity in such a case from that requiring acceptance of an offer of a bilateral contract.15 It is of course possible to have a promise to guarantee

States etc. Co. v. Riefler, 239 U. S. 17, 60 L. Ed. 121, 36 Sup. Ct. 12; Barnes Cycle Co. v. Reed, 84 Fed. 603, 91 Fed. 481, 33 C. C. A. 646; Cahussc v. Samini, 29 Ala. 288; (cp. Shows v. Steiner, 175 Ala. 363, 57 So. 700); McCollum v. Cushing, 22 Ark. 540; (cp. McCarroll v. Red Diamond Clothing Co., 105 Ark. 443,151 S. W. 1012); Falls City Const. Co. v. Boardman, 111 Ark. 415, 163 S. W. 1134; Henderson v. Reilly, 1 McArth. 25; Craft v. Isham, 13 Conn. 28; Farmers' Bank v. Tatnall, 7 Houat. 287; Claflin v. Briant, 58 Ga. 414; Meyer v. Ruhstadt, 66 111. App. 346 (cp. Pressed Radiator Co. v. Hughes, 155 111. App. 80), State Bank v. King, 244 Pa. 29, 90 Ark. 453; Mil-roy v. Quinn, 69 Ind. 406, 35 Am. Rep. 227; Hnsselman v. Japanese Co., 2 Ind. App. 180, 27 N. E. 318, 28 N. E. 207 (cp. Kline v. Raymond, 70 Ind. 271); Snyder v. Click, 112 Ind. 293, 13 N. E. 581; Nading v. McGregor, 121 Ind. 465, 23 N. E. 283, 6 L. R. A. 686; Lowe v. Beckwith, 14 B. Mon. 184, 58 Am. Dec. 659; Eaton v. Harris, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1236, 43 S. W. 199 (cp. J. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. Brand, 143 Ky. 468, 136 S. W. 867); Bank of Illinois v. Sloo, 16 La. 539,35 Am. Dec. 223; Menard v. Scudder, 7 La. Ann. 385, 36 Am. Dee. 610; Lachman v. Block, 47 La. Ann. 505, 17 So. 153, 28 L. R. A. 255; American Agricultural Chem. Co. v. Ellsworth, 109 Me. 195, 83 Atl. 546; Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496, 37 N. E. 665, 42 Am. St. Rep. 437; Bascom v. Smith, 164 Maw. 61, 41 N. E. 130; Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co. v. Wheaton, 208 Mass. 425, 431, 94 N. E. 803; Black v. Gra-bon, 216 Mass. 516, 101 N. E. 346 (cf.

Stauffer v Koch, 225 Mass. 525, 114 N. E. 750); Winnebago Mills v. Travis, 56 Minn. 480, 58 N. W. 36; Straight v. Wight, 60 Minn. 515, 63 N. W. 105; Taylor v. Shouse, 73 Mo. 361; Mitchell v. Railton, 45 Mo. App. 273; Tolman Co. v. Means, 52 Mo. App. 385; American Nat. Bank v. Pillman, 176 Mo. App. 430,158 S. W. 433; Ellis v. Jones, 70 Miss. 60, 11 So. 566; McDougal v. Calef, 34 N. H. 534 (but see Bank of Newberry v. Sinclair, 60 N. H. 100, 49 Am. Rep. 307); Shewell v. Knox, 1 Dev. (N. C.) 404; Rothchild v. Lomax, 75 Or. 395, 146 Pac. 479; Patterson v. Reed, 7 W. ft S. 144; Coe v. Buehler, 110 Pa. 366,5 Atl. 20; Evans v. McCor-mick, 167 Pa. 247, 31 Atl. 563; King v. Batterson, 13 R. I.117,43 Am. Rep. 13; Wardlaw v. Harrison, 11 Rich. 628; Duncan v. Heller, 13 S. C. 94; Smith v. Kimble, 31 S. Dak. 18, 139 N. W. 348; Deering v. Mortell, 21 S. Dak. 159, 110 N. W. 86, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 352; Mayfield v. Wheeler, 37 Tex. 256; Wilkins v. Carter, 84 Tex. 438, 19 S. W. 997; Carter v. Wilkins (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 1102 (cp. Danner v. Walker-Smith Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 205; Lester Piano Co. v. Romney, 41 Utah, 436, 126 Pac. 325; Train v. Jones, 11 Vt. 444; Noyes v. Nichols, 28 Vt. 189. The authorities are collected and their effect stated in 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 353. Where the guarantor's promise is under seal, no notice was held necessary in United States etc. Co. v. Riefler, 239 U. S. 17, 60 L. Ed. 121,36 Sup. Ct. 12; Hartford-Aetna Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 92 Conn. 643,103 Atl. 845.

15 See Davis v. Wells Fargo ft Co., 104 U. S. 159, 26 L. Ed. 686, where the offered in exchange for a promise to perform some act, but as has been said the cases where the question of notice has arisen, and cases of guarantees generally, present the case of requested performances, not requested promises.