Mr. Sharma, a trader, wrote to Mr. Verma offering to sell him100barrels of “oil” at 5,000 per barrel. The letter reached Verma on 1st June. On 2nd…

(a) Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 lays down the rules of communication of acceptance and revocation: • The communication of acceptance is complete, as against the proposer, when it is put in the course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor. • The communication of revocation is complete, as against the person who makes it, when it is put into transmission; and, as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge. • Therefore, revocation is valid only if it reaches the offeree before he posts his acceptance. Further, Section 10 provides the essentials of a valid contract. Among them, the agreement must be certain and capable of being performed. If the meaning of the agreement is uncertain, or if it is incapable of performance, it cannot be enforced. Section 56 declares that agreements to do an impossible act are void. If a contract becomes impossible to perform after it is made, it becomes void when the act becomes impossible. In the instant case, Mr. Sharma offered to sell “oil” to Mr. Verma and later posted a revocation. Before receiving the revocation, Verma posted his acceptance. Sharma then refused delivery, claiming the contract was void due to the unspecified “oil” and his lack of stock. On the basis of the provisions of law and the facts of the case, it can be concluded that although acceptance was validly communicated before revocation, the agreement was void because (a) it was uncertain (the type of oil was not specified), and (b) performance was impossible (Sharma had no oil stock). Hence, no enforceable contract exists and Verma cannot claim damages.