contract-law common-law
What range of applications does the concept of “master of an offer” have?
<p>Is it an ad hoc creation for or rationalisation of the situation with private lot parking tickets, or does it have any broader applications /currency as a proper abstraction?</p>

<h2>It has two</h2>
<ol>
<li>The offeror can revoke the offer at any time <em>before</em> acceptance</li>
<li>The offeror can stipulate the manner in which acceptance of the offer is to be done. This can relate to time, place, and method of acceptance including if acceptance can be by action and what action that would be.</li>
</ol>

<p>This is a general contract law principle, not specific to private lot parking tickets. The rule is that &quot;[a]n offer which requires the acceptance to be expressed or communicated in a specified way can generally be accepted only in that way&quot; (<em>Chitty on Contracts</em>, § 4-082). However, if the <em>purpose</em> of the specified mode of acceptance is achieved through another &quot;equally efficacious&quot; method, it may be considered acceptance as well.</p>
<p>Examples:</p>
<ul>
<li><em>Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.</em> (1892), <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1892/1.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[1893] 1 Q.B. 256</a>: The offeror made an offer to the world that could be accepted by anyone who performed the terms that constitued acceptance (which was simply buying one of the smoke balls and using the smoke ball as suggested).</li>
<li><em>Roberts v. Hayward</em> (1828), <a href="https://vlex.co.uk/vid/roberts-v-hayward-802980889" rel="nofollow noreferrer">172 E.R. 489</a>: A tenant accepted an offer of a new tenancy by not vacating the premises; this has been considered acceptance by conduct which was specified by the offeror (<em>Claxton Engineering Services Ltd. v. TXM Olaj-és Gázkutató Kft</em>, [2010] EWHC 2567 at paragraph 52-54).</li>
</ul>
<p>One corollary of this principle is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_image_rule" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>mirror image rule</em></a>, but this has been displaced in certain domains such as under the Uniform Commercial Code.</p>
