An acceptance may refer to new terms not as part of the contract but as favors asked of the party offering to be granted or withheld at his option. Such new terms do not, of course, invalidate the acceptance.1 Still less hour and place to be decided later." Such acceptance was held to complete the contract9 An unequivocal acceptance is not rendered insufficient by the fact that the telegram of acceptance contains a further offer on certain conditions.10

10 Williams v. Moore, 117 Ark. 535, 175 S. W. 1198.

11 Crenshaw Bros. Seed Co. v. Rauch, 112 Miss. 330,, 73 So. 53.

12 Elliott v. Howison, 146 Ala. 568, 40 So. 1018.

13 Roberts v. Paducah, 95 Fed. 62. 14 Grimsrud Shoe Co. v. Jackson, 22

8. D. 114, 115 N. W. 656.

15 Hussey v. Home-Payne, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 311. (Obiter, as subsequent correspondence which treated the negotiations as still incomplete, operated as a rescission.) Morse v. Tillotson & do such new terms invalidate the acceptance if not suggested until after acceptance is complete.2 An acceptance of an offer to sell goods with a request that they be "rushed";3 an acceptance of an offer to sell land with a suggestion that the deed and abstract be sent to a designated bank to be delivered of payment of the purchase price if the title proved to be perfect;4 an acceptance of an offer to sell land which requests that the abstract be sent at once instead of being delivered when the purchase price is paid, which was the provision in the offer;5 ora request for a change as to the time of performance; 6 or as to the method of Packing the goods which are sold,7 have been held to be sufficient. A request for a change in the method of payment does not render the acceptance inoperative if such acceptance is not conditioned upon the assent of the offeror to such change.8 A gave B an option on coal lands. B wrote to A: "I hereby notify you that your coal will be accepted according to terms of option given to me on same and respectfully request you to make delivery of deed with abstract of title to me in Morgantown, W. Va., on Saturday, June 28, 1902,

Wolcott Co., 253 Fed. 340, 1 A. L. R. 1485.

16 Phoenix Iron & Steel Co. v. Wilkoff Co., 253 Fed. 165, 1 A. L. R. 1497.

17 Phoenix Iron & Steel Co. v. Wilkoff Co., 253 Fed. 165, 1 A. L. R. 1497.

18 Phoenix Iron & Steel Co. v. Wilkoff Co., 253 Fed. 165, 1 A. L. R. 1497.

1 England. Simpson v. Hughes, 66 L. J. Ch. N. S. 143, 334 (asking from what time the purchase of land is to date, and that the fences be attended to at once).

Arkansas. Bushmeyer v. McGarry, 112 Ark. 373, 166 S. W. 168; Williams v. Moore, 117 Ark. 535, 175 S. W. 1198.

Iowa. Culton v. Gilchrist, 92 la. 718, 61 N. W. 384 (asking that permission be given in lease to lessee to build an addition to the house leased).

Kansas. Brown v. Cairns, 63 Kan. 693, 66 Ac. 1033 (accepting an offer of a reduction in rent for two years only, instead of five as requested; but adding, "We will continue to do our best, and if we can not make it, I am sure you will meet us again, as we don't want to leave the place but don't intend to go in the hole").

Maine. Simpson v. Emmons, 116 Me. 14, 99 Atl. 658.

Minnesota. Warren Bros. Co. v. King, 96 Minn. 190, 104 N. W. 816.

North Carolina. Wilkins v. Vass Cotton Mills, - N. Car. - , 97 S. E. 151.

North Dakota. Horgan v. Russell, 24 N. D. 490, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1150, 140 N. W. 99.

Pennsylvania. Eckert v Schoch, 155 Pa. St. 530, 26 Atl. 654 (asking a broker who has offered five cars of wheat at a certain price to send them, getting them as quickly as possible).

Vermont. Purrington v. Grimm, 83 Vt. 466, 76 Atl. 158.

West Virginia. Turner v. McCormick, 56 W. Va. 161, 107 Am. St. Rep. 904, 67 L. R. A. 853, 49 S. E. 28. For the effect of adding to an oral acceptance a provision that a written contract will be prepared and forwarded, see Sec. 213.

2 Crenshaw Bros. Seed Co. v. Rauch, 112 Miss. 330, 73 So. 53.

3 Simpson v. Emmons, 116 Me. 14,

99 Atl. 658.

4 Kreutzer v. Lynch, 122 Wis. 474,

100 N. W. 887.

5 Bushmeyer v. McGarry, 112 Ark. 373, 166 S. W. 168.

6 Cherokee Mills v. Gate City Cotton Mills, 122 Ga. 268, 50 S. E. 82.

7 Kelley v. Sibley, 187 Fed. 586, 69 C. C. A. 674.

8 Bushmeyer v. McGarry, 112 Ark. 373, 166 S. W. 168.