Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The two situations outlined in Williston are a nebulous grey area, a twilight zone as it were, in which Mr. Jain would have his clients' case fall. But let us test this: does ROML claim to have "become immediately bound on a condition not named in the offer"? Or does it adopt "unequivocally the terms of the offer but state that it will not be effective until a certain contingency happens or fails to happen"? It cannot be both. Indeed, I do not think it can (1973) 3 SCC 889 3rd ed, Vol. I, S.77-A; para 7 of the SCC report 17 of 30 CP440-11-F.DOC be either. For the endorsement made by ROML is in no sense "a condition not named in the offer". The endorsement is a statement made in generalities about an event schedule yet to be decided. This was not a material term; had it been so, the event schedule would have formed part of the Sponsorship Agreement itself; and its omission would have caused ROML to simply return the document unsigned. The endorsement also cannot be a statement that the Sponsorship Agreement is not to be effective until a certain contigency, viz., the finalizing of the event schedule, happens or does not happen, simply because the event schedule, or its finalization, was in no sense a 'contingency'. It was merely something that needed to be done, if not already done. It was a mere detail and, as we shall see, one that had been previously changed at ROML's instance.