EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COM MUNICATE ALL THE TERMS OF OFFER. "If an offer contains on its face the terms of a com plete contract. the acceptor will not be bound by any other terms intended to be included in it; unless it ap pear that he knew of those terms, or had their existence brought to his knowledge and was capable of inform ing himself of their nature. Cases which illustrate this rule arise when a contract has been made with a rail- way company for the safe carriage of the plaintiff, or of his luggage; or for the deposit or bailment of baggage in a cloak room; or, as in the last reported case on the subject, where a contract has been made for the de posit of an article and. its sale upon commission. In each case the document or ticket delivered to the plaintiff contained terms modifying the liability of the defendant, the offerer, as carrier or bailee; in each case the plaintiff, as acceptor, alleged that the terms were not brought to his notice so as to form part of the offer which he accepted.
"The law applicable to these cases is thus laid down by Mellish, L. J.: 'If the person receiving the ticket did not see or know that there was any writing on the ticket, he is not bound by the conditions ; if he knew there was writing, and knew or believed that the writ ing contained conditions, then he is hound by the con if he knew there was writing on the ticket but did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions, nevertheless he would be bound, if the de livering to him of the ticket in such a manner that he could see there was writing upon it, was, in the opinion of the jury, reasonable notice that the writing con tained conditions.' " (Anson on Contract, p. i6; Parker v. S. E. Railway Co., 2 C. P. D. 423.) THE OFFER MUST BE INTENDED AS SUCH. The intention of the one party to ob serve the matter in question, expressed to and accepted by the other, for the purpose of creating a right to its observance, constitutes a promise. (Leake on Cont. 13.) But where a person whose horse had been stolen, exclaimed, "I will give $100 to any one who will find out the thief," it was held not to be an offer to pay a reward, but merely an explosion of wrath against the thief. (Higgins v. Lessig, 49 Ill. App. 459.) So where a man with a marriageable daughter said he would give $500 to him who married his daughter with his consent, he was held not to be bound by the offer, the words being considered merely to excite suitors. (Week v. Tibold, Roll. Abr., p. 6.) And it is held that a proposal must not only he in tended to create legal relations, but must also be ca pable of creating them, that is, must not be so indefin ite or illusory as to make it difficult to say what had been promised. (Anson on Contract, p. 19.)