McGurn Brief - McGurn v. Bell Microproducts, Inc. Issue Did...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
McGurn v. Bell Microproducts, Inc. Issue Did Bell Microproducts silence result in acceptance of McGurn's contract alteration? Rule Offeree - the one receiving Offeror - making the offer. Contract - an exchange of promises. Acceptance - 1)present intent to accept 2) same terms (mirror image rule) and 3) communicated to offeror. Offer - 1)Present intent to contract 2) definiteness of terms and 3)communicated to offeree Application McGurn argues that Bell accepted his counter offer that he made on July 3,1997 with the altered terms of "twenty-four" instead of "twelve" and on July 8, returned the letter and began to work. Bell allowed McGurn to work without rejecting the alteration in the contract and allowed him to work until August 3, 1998 which indicated Bell's intent to accept. McGurn agrees that he sent a counter offer to Bell, but since they did not reject the change, and allowed him to work with the counter offer the terms were understood to be the same. McGurn argues that he signed and
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online