How has the court interpreted an offer to maintain a water system and provide water to a number of residents?

Save X relied on Pilgrim v. Miller [1997] A.J. No. 224 (Nfld. C.A.), where the court held that an offer to maintain a water system and provide water to a number of residents was revoked by the action of directing that the waterline be cut. This action was inconsistent with the offer remaining open and it was communicated to the offerees, as they were present when the line was cut. As a result, it was not open to them to subsequently accept the offer.

The second case referred to by Save X was Biswanger v. Federal Grain Ltd. [1975] A.J. No. 47(Alta. C.A.). At issue in that case was how long an employer had left open an offer for a severance allowance. The court found that, by February, the offeree was in possession of the offer in sufficient detail to constitute a possible contract. The employee applied some 8 months later in October for the allowance and the court found that the offer was still open for acceptance at that time.