Revocable GPL (Groklaw)

> This may well be a US-vs-English law difference, but my understanding is 
that `contracts which one party is unaware of' is meaningless in English 
law (I can't even figure out what on earth it might mean in everyday 
English).

This case defined the concept of a unilateral offer. The issue was that although Carbolic
claimed to have been unaware of having made an offer (of compensation for the smoke balls
having proved inefficiacious), in legal terms they met every qualification of having done so
(precision of offered consideration - £1000 placed in a bank account for the purpose;
precision of audience - the general public; specification of the means of acceptance - use of
the smoke balls). And English law does presume competence. Having thus met the conditions of
acceptance, Mrs Carlill was entitled to succeed in her claim against them.

Advertisers have been rather more careful to state and ensure that they are in no way making
offers since then.