v. Van Tienhoven & Co. [(1880) 5 CPD 344]. According to J. Lindley, a state of mind which is not ratified cannot be considered in relations between men and a revocation which has not been communicated has no force in practice and in the eyes of the law. He stressed that any other conclusion would result in extreme injustice and inconvenience. The offer is not withdrawn simply by acting inconsistently with its purpose. A notice of revocation must be given and this must reach the recipient, simply sending the letter will not be enough. The revocation notice will be deemed to have been served when it reaches the addressee's address. This position was confirmed in the Tenax Steamship Co. Ltd. case. V. Owners of the Motor Vessels Brimnes [1974] All ER 88, CA. In this case, a notice of withdrawal of a vessel from the charterers' services was sent by telex and was received by the plaintiff's telex during normal business hours, but the plaintiff read the message the following day. However, he was bound by the notice when his machine received it. The situation would have been different if the telex had reached the applicant's office after office hours, it would then have been considered communicated on the following working day.