Unformatted text preview: were changed by the church when they sent me a purchase agreement with additional terms, this indicates a rejection and a counter offer by the church. Even though Pernal did receive the purchase agreement, he did not sign it and did not agree to the churches new offer. The Church argues they had present intent to accept, because they relied on June 4 to accept the offer made by Pernal on June 3. We agree that the Church amended a few terms, but they were not a material change and should still be accepted. The Church communicated the offer to Pernal by letter on June 4. Conclusion The Church did not accept the offer made by Pernal, because they did not agree to the terms and made a new offer to Pernal which he rejected by not signing the purchase agreement from Pernal....
View Full 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.
- Spring '11
- Business Law