Sec 800

A contract implies the consent of two parties,1 but it does not follow that both parties should be known at the time of the proposal to each other. One may be indeterminate at the time the proposal is made, and the proposal may remain open, so far as the promisee is concerned, until the contingency happens by which he is individuated. The proposal in such case establishes a contractual relation with all who take action in submission to its terms.2 Hence a written promise by a colliery agent, addressed to whomsoever should apply, to load a ship on specific terms, binds the promisor to a master of a ship who chartered the ship on the faith of the promise.3 Under the same head may be mentioned railroad time-tables which bind the companies to parties taking action under such time-tables.4

Sec 801

As additional illustrations of this rule may be noticed offers of rewards, by which persons desiring to have certain services rendered offer a specific sum to those persons who should render such services. "Who the persons in question will be is not known by the promisor at the time of making the promise.5 A letter of credit, also, binds the party issuing it to all bankers who may advance money on the faith of it. The holder of the letter takes it to any bankers whom he may select, provided he be not limited in the letter, and the bankers who advance money on the faith of the letter become the promisees under the letter. When the proposal is taken up by a banker acting on the letter, then the contract is complete.6 The same distinction is applicable to offers of sale at auction. The proposal is made when the article is put up for sale. The acceptance is when the hammer falls; and at this moment the contract is complete.1 But that there is no contract until there is an acceptance by a definite person is illustrated by other recent rulings. In one case it was held that the mere fact that an auctioneer in good faith advertises a sale of certain goods, does not bind him to parties attending the sale that the sale shall actually take place.2 In another case it was held that the offer of stock in trade by tender does not amount to a contract to sell the stock to the person making the highest tender.3 Yet we can readily conceive of cases in which the auctioneer might create a binding contract by a general proposal. Suppose he should say, "if you put up a deposit," or "if you will give up another purchase you have in view," then the handing in the deposit, or the giving up the other purchase, would be a consideration which would bind the vendor.4

Plaintiff may depend for ascertainment on contingency.

Illustrated by offers of rewards, circular letters, and auction sales.

519; McHenry V. McCall, 10 Watts, 456; Lair V. Hunsicker, 28 Penu. St. 115.

1 Supra, sec 2.

2 Supra, sec 24; Leake, 2d ed. 436; Tooley V. Comstock, 45 Mich. 603; supra, sec 786.

3 Weidner V. Hoggett, L. R. 1 C. P. D. 533.

4 Supra, sec 25. Mr. Pollock, 3d ed. 204, lays it down categorically that.

"the original parties to a contract must be persons ascertained at the time when the contract is made." This is to be taken subject to the qualification in the text. "The contract is not made" until the acceptance. Windscheid, ii. sec 309.

5 Supra, sec 24-26.

6 Supra, sec 25 a; Asiatic Banking Co. ex parte, L. R. 2 Ch. 391.