Relying on Diefenbacher v. Young, supra, the applicant submits that, notwithstanding the language of Rule 49, a subsequent offer may be taken as a withdrawal of a prior offer by implication. It submits that the normal understanding of the litigant should be adopted and that natural, common and logical inferences are to be applied in determining whether an offer should be implicitly regarded as withdrawn. In any event, the applicant states that the necessary inference arising out of the respondent’s offer, made September 11, 2014, was that the applicant’s offer was no longer open for acceptance. In oral submissions, the applicant indicated that the respondent’s offer could have also been made by inadvertence on the part of the respondent as regards the amount of the applicant’s offer outstanding.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.