How have the Courts treated the foregoing provision of a "contract" in the context of a theft claim?

The People contend the foregoing provision imposed an obligation upon the victim and for this reason the transaction constituted a theft. The provision refers to cancellation of the 'contract'. As heretofore noted, the 'contract' did not come into existence because it lacked acceptance by the company. Assuming the provision refers to the cancellation of the 'offer', it was without a consideration; was not binding upon the victim; and, for this reason, created no obligation. [259 Cal.App.2d 408] (Bellasi v. Shackelford, 201 Cal.App.2d 265, 267, 19 Cal.Rptr. 925.)