{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Chapter 13 Assignment Answers - Business Law I Fall/2011...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Business Law I Fall/2011 Chapter 13 – Assignment Answers Evelyn Tavares 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 3. No. The letter was not revoked by Katherine, because when Paul accepted the offer, he had no idea that Katherine intended to revoke the offer. A letter on mail is not enough to characterize revocation. In this case Katherine would need the mail confirmation, just regular letter on mail it’s not enough. As mentioned in the book - “A written revocation is effective, however, when it is delivered to the offeree’s agent or to the offeree’s residence or place of business under such circumstances that the offeree may be reasonably expected to be aware of its receipt.”- And such thing did not happen. 4. The verdict was on Baker’s favor. Nelson made some changes on Baker’s offer which characterize counter offer, and it terminates the original offer which does not have to be subsequently accepted by the offeree, so Baker has no obligation to accept Nelson’s counter offer. If Nelson had signed and sent back to Baker the original offer, than Nelson would have
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online