Also known as: lapses of time · passage of time · effluxion of time
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
An event terminating an offeree's power of acceptance when a reasonable or stated period expires without acceptance. The period begins when the offer is received unless the offer specifies otherwise.
An event terminating an offeree's power of acceptance when a reasonable or stated period expires without acceptance. The period begins when the offer is received unless the offer specifies otherwise.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A factor that may shift the duty to prevent harm from the original actor to a third person, rendering the third person's failure to act a superseding cause that relieves the original actor of liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A factor that may shift the duty to prevent harm from the original actor to a third person, rendering the third person's failure to act a superseding cause that relieves the original actor of liability.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Lila Lin mails an offer to sell equipment to Lumen Capital on March 1 with no stated expiration. The letter arrives March 5. Lumen Capital mails an acceptance March 15. Because the reasonable time for acceptance has lapsed, the power of acceptance ended before the response arrived and no contract forms.
Lorenzo Lugo defaults on a mortgage during an economic crisis. A state law enacted years earlier temporarily extends the redemption period. The court must decide whether the extension, justified by the emergency and limited duration, violates the Contracts Clause given the passage of time since the original obligation arose.
Lance Lee receives funds from an uncle with an oral understanding to hold them for a nephew. After many years the nephew's assignee sues. The court examines whether the long lapse of time bars the action or whether the uncle's acknowledgment created a trust that is not subject to the ordinary limitation period.
An offer expires when the stated or reasonable time for acceptance passes without a response. The period usually begins upon receipt. A late acceptance has no legal effect and may instead constitute a new offer.
Supporting sources
No. It bars claims only when a statute of limitations or other rule so provides. Some obligations, such as certain trusts, may not be subject to ordinary time bars even after extended periods.
Supporting sources
Courts measure the reasonable period from receipt of the offer unless the offer states otherwise. Factors include the subject matter, the parties' communications, and trade usage. An acceptance sent after that period is ineffective.
Supporting sources
Lakewood Manufacturing negligently stores chemicals that begin leaking toward a neighboring property. Years later a third-party contractor hired by the neighbor fails to install promised containment. The extended passage of time has shifted the duty to prevent harm to the contractor, making its inaction the superseding cause of the resulting damage.
Liberty Trust's employee leaves a loading dock gate open. Months later a different company that now controls the site fails to secure the gate, allowing vandals to enter and cause injury. Because of the lapse of time the duty to prevent harm has shifted, so the later company's omission is a superseding cause that cuts off Liberty Trust's liability.
A plaintiff injured in State A files suit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The claim would be timely under federal precedent but barred by State A's statute of limitations. The court applies the state rule that a cause of action for tort may be extinguished by lapse of time, dismissing the action.
When the passage of time causes the duty to prevent harm to shift from the original negligent actor to a third person, the third person's failure to act becomes a superseding cause that relieves the original actor of liability.
Supporting sources
…not liable for defects in the goods unless he was guilty of fraud or unless he expressly warranted against defects. With the passage of time the rule of caveat emptor was relaxed. Implied warranties of quality and fitness were recognized. The seller was held liable for defects in the goods even though he did not know of…