An option is said to be "a unilateral agreement binding upon the party who executes it from the date of its execution, and it becomes a contract inter partes when exercised according to its terms";1 an "exclusive privilege to buy";2 a "continuing offer, binding for the time specified, on the one who makes it, but not the one to whom it is made, unless he accepts";3 or "an obligation by which one binds himself to sell and leaves it discretionary with the other party to buy."4

7 Stewart v. Herron, 77 0. S. 130, 82 N. E. 956.

8 United States. Huggins v. Daley, 99 Fed. 606, 48 L. R. A. 320.

Arkansas. Mansfield Gas Co. v. Parkhill, 114 Ark. 419, 169 S. W. 957.

Illinois. Daughetee v. Ohio Oil Co., 263 111. 518, 105 N. E. 308; Stoddard v. Illinois Improvement & Ballast Co., 275 111. 199, 113 N. E. 913.

Indiana. Gadbury v. Ohio & Indiana Consolidated Natural & Illuminating Gas Co., 162 Ind. 9, 62 L. R. A. 895, 67 N. E. 259.

Kentucky. Killebrew v. Murray, 151 Ky. 345, 151 S. W. 662.

Ohio. Venedocia Oil & Gas Co. v. Robinson, 71 0. S. 302, 73 N. E. 222.

Pennsylvania. Aye v. Philadelphia

Co., 193 Pa. St. 451, 74 Am. St. Rep. 696, 44 Atl. 555.

West Virginia. Grass v. Big Creek Development Co., 75 W. Va. 719, L. R. A. 1915E, 1057, 84 S. E. 750.

9 Brown v. Wilson, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917B, 1184, 160 Pac. 94.

1 Boyer v. Nesbitt, 227 Pa. St. 398, 76 Atl. 103.

2 Benedict v. Pincus, 191 N. Y. 377, 84 N. E. 284.

3 Benedict v. Pincus, 191 N. Y. 377, 84 N. E. 284.

4 Black v. Maddox, 104 Ga. 157, 30 S. E. 723 [quoted in Trogden v. Williams, 144 N. Car. 192, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 867, 56 S. E. 865, and in Winders v. Kenan, 161 N. Car. 628, 77 S. E. 687].

A so-called contract by which A agrees to sell to B at B's option in case A is willing to sell when B exercises such option, is without legal effect.5

If A offers to sell certain property to B, and promises to give B a certain time in which to accept, the transaction up to this point is clearly an offer without acceptance.6 The fact that such transaction purports to be a contract, does not make it such if, by its terms, it does not take effect until it is accepted or approved by the adversary party.7 Sending goods "on approval" is merely an offer and not a contract.8 Accordingly, if there is no further consideration than appears from such statement of the case, A's promise to leave the offer open for a certain time is unenforceable, and he may revoke his offer at any time,9 and the death of the offeree10 revokes the offer. So if there was once a consideration for the option, it is no consideration for an extension thereof.11 For these reasons it is often said that an option has no consideration;12 but this means only that it usually has no consideration, not that it can not have one. If B confers some legal right upon A, or forbears some legal right of his own,13 as waiving a pre-existing right of action;14 or where A receives money for the option;15 or if A's promise is a part of transaction in which value passes on each side, as where an option to sell is part of a lease for value;16 or if as part of a contract binding one party to sell a certain amount of goods, and binding the other party to buy and to pay for such goods, one party is given an option to buy or to sell other goods, as the case may be;17 or if as part of a binding contract one party is given an option to renew such contract for a certain time;18 or if B, in consideration of such option, agrees to spend money in advertising,19 the option has a consideration and is enforceable, even by specific performance.20 If a contract between a manufacturing company and a distributing company is not enforceable while it is executory, because it does not impose obligations upon each party, it can not be avoided after performance by each;21 and, accordingly, the distributing company can not recover payment which, by the terms of the contract, were to be applied only to the purchase price of goods which it might order there-After.22

5Saraceno v. Carrano, 92 Conn. 563, 103 Atl. 631.

6See Sec. 150 et seq.

7Steinhauer v. Henson, 54 Colo. 426, 131 Pac. 255.

8 Steinhauer v. Henson, 54 Colo. 426, 131 Pac. 255.

9 Alabama. Cahaba Coal Co. v. Veitch, 186 Ala. 460, 65 So. 75.

Colorado. Smith v. Bateman, 25 Colo. 241, 53 Pac. 457 [affirming, 8 Colo. App. 336, 46 Pac. 213].

Illinois. Corbett v. Cronkhite, 239 111. 9, 87 N. E. 874.

Kentucky. Litz v. Goosling, 93 Ky. 185, 21 L. R. A. 127, 19 S. W. 527.

Michigan. Axe v. Tolbert, 179 Mich. 656, 146 N. W. 418.

Mississippi. Comstock v. North, 88 Miss. 754, 41 So. 374.

Missouri. Warren v. Castello, 109 Mo. 338, 32 Am. St. Rep. 669, 19 S. W. 29; Davis v. Petty, 147 Mo. 374, 48 S. W. 944.

Nebraska. Darr v. Mumert, 57 Neb. 378, 77 N. W. 767.

Pennsylvania. Bosshardt, etc., Co. v. Oil Co., 171 Pa. St. 109, 32 Atl. 1120.

Tennessee. Bradford v. Foster, 87 Tenn. 4, 9 S. W. 195.

Utah. Walker v. Bamberger,. 17 Utah 239, 54 Pac. 108.

Washington. Barton v. Spinning, 8 Wash. 458, 36 Pac. 439.

West Virginia. Weaver v. Burr, 31 W. Va., 736, 3 L. R. A. 94, 8 S. E. 743.

10 Newton v. Newton, 11 R. I. 390,

23 Am. Rep. 476.

11 Coleman v. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21, 6 Am. St. Rep. 417, 11 Atl. 284; Ide v. Leiser, 10 Mont. 5, 24 Am. St. Rep. 17,

24 Pac. 695; Cockrill v. Whitworth (Tenn. Ch. App.), 52 S. W. 524.

12Bosshart, etc., Co. v. Oil Co., 171 Pa. St. 109, 32 Atl. 1120.

13Conley Camera Co. v. Multiscope & Film Co., 216 Fed. 892.

14Robson v. Logging Co., 43 Fed. 364.

15Calanchini v. Branstetter, 84 Cal. 249, 24 Pac. 149; Simms v. Lide, 94 Ga. 553, 21 S. E. 220; Woodland Oil Co.

If the option is accepted before it is revoked, a contract binding on both parties is created thereby, as it is in the nature of a continuing offer.23 If an option for value is accepted before it is v. Crawford, 55 0. S. 161, 34 L. R A. 62, 44 N. E. 1093.

16Marske v. Willard, 169 III. 276, 48 N. E. 290 [affirming, 68 111. App. 831.

17 A contract to take from one thousand to one thousand, five hundred tons of coal. Smokeless Fuel Go. v. Seaton, 105 Va. 170, 52 S. E. 829.

18Olympia Bottling Works v. Olym-pia Brewing Co., 56 Or. 87, 107 Pac. 969.

19Sixta v. Ontonagon Valley Land Co., 148 Wis. 186, 134 N. W. 341.

20 Johnston v. Trippe, 33 Fed. 530; Moses v. McClain, 82 Ala. 370, 2 So. 741; Ross v. Parks, 93 Ala. 153, 30 Am. St. Rep. 47, 11 L. R. A. 148, 8 So. 368.

Contra, A's promise to give an option to B to Bell certain stock to A if B would buy it from X was said to be without consideration if B did not agree to sell to A or to buy from X, even if B actually bought such stock from X. Eustice v. Meytrott, 100 Ark. 510, 140 S. W. 590.

21 Gile v. Interstate Motor Car Co., 27 N. D. 108, L. R. A. 1915B, 109, 145 N. W. 732.

22 Gile v. Interstate Motor Car Co., 27 N. D. 108, L. R. A. 1915B, 109, 145 N. W. 732.

23 United States. Willard v. Tayloe, 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) 567, 19 L. ed. 501; Johnston v. Trippe, 33 Fed. 530.

Alabama. Wilks v. R. R., 79 Ala. 180; Moses v. McClain, 82 Ala. 370, 2 So. 741; Ross v. Parks, 93 Ala. 153, 30 Am. St. Rep. 47, 8 So. 368; Stay v. Tennille, 159 Ala. 514, 49 So. 238 (obiter, as contract was indefinite); Bethea v. McCullough, 195 Ala. 480, 70 So. 680.

California. Smith v. Post, 167 Cal. 69, 138 Pac. 705.

Illinois. Carter v. Love, 206 111. 310, 69 N. E. 85.

Massachusetts. Boston, etc., R. R. v. Bartlett, 57 Mass. (3 Cush.) 224; Old Colony R. R. v. Evans, 72 Mass. (6 Gray) 25, 66 Am. Dec. 394.

revoked, the adequacy of the consideration for the option is immaterial.24

If the offer has been accepted, the transaction is a contract and not an option,25 even although the purchase price is not to be paid until the happening of some other and further event.26