This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
No particular form of revocation is necessary. It is sufficient if the entire communication shows unequivocally to the offeree that the offeror does not regard himself as bound by his offer any longer.1 Submission of a modification of an offer operates as a revocation of the original offer if such offer has been made to a specific offeree.2 A request to cancel an order for goods,3 or a statement by the prospective buyer that he finds that he does not need the goods and that he desires to have the order cancelled,4 operate as a revocation. While no particular form of revocation is required, the offeror must make clear to the offeree his intention to revoke.5 A suggestion on the part of the offeror that the performance of the contract be delayed is not equivalent to a revocation of the offer.6 A request by the buyer for delay in shipment of goods is not a revocation of a prior offer.7 A statement by one who has ordered certain goods, that he will not accept them unless they conform to a specified test, is said not to amount to a revocation of such order.8 A repudiation of certain voidable collateral liabilities does not amount to revocation of an offer.9
17 Verstine v. Yeaney, 210 Pa. St. 109, 59 Atl. 689.
18 Curtis v. American Case-Register Co., 38 D. C. App. 115. See Sec. 167 et seq.
1 Stroock Plush Co. v. New England Cotton Yarn Co., 213 Mass. 354, 100 N. E. 617; J. L. Owens Co. v. Bemis, 22 N. D. 159, 133 N. W. 59.
2 Stroock Plush Co. v. New England Cotton Yarn Co., 213 Mass. 354, 100 N. E. 617.
3 J. L. Owens Co. v. Bemis, 22 N .D. 159, 133 N. W. 59.
4 Curtis v. Register Co., 38 D. C. App. 115.
5 Wichita Union Terminal Ry. Co. v. Kansas City, Mexico ft Orient R. Co., 100 Kan. 83, 163 Ac. 1067; Outcault Advertising Co. v. Buell, 71 Or. 52, 141 Ac. 1020; Victor Safe ft Lock Co. v. O'Neil, 48 Wash. 176, 93 Ac. 214.
6 Outcault Advertising Co. v. Buell, 71 Or. 52, 141 Ac. 1020.
7 Newton v. Bayless Fruit Co., 155 Ky. 440, 159 S. W. 968.
8 Victor Safe ft Lock Co. v. O'Neil, 48 Wash. 176, 93 Ac. 214.
9 Wichita Union Terminal Ry. Co. v. Kansas City, M. ft O. R. Co., 100 Kan. 83, 163 Ac. 1067.
10 Hoggard v. Dickerson, 180 Mo. App. 70, 165 S. W. 1135.