Jami Bond08/30/2020Professor JunkI have read the entire case- JBPart 1:Case Citation:Everett v. Estate of Sumstad, 26 Wn. App. 742, 614 P.2d 1294, 26 Wash. App. 742(Wash. Ct. App. 1980)Facts:The owners of a small secondhand store, Al and Rosemary Mitchell, went to an auctionwhere they purchased a safe. The Auction knew that the combination to the safe was unknown,and that the inner door had been locked, and they never received the key. When auctioning thesafe, both facts were stated. Al and Rosemary purchased the safe knowing these key facts. Theytook their safe to a locksmith where they found over $32,000 dollars hidden away in the lockedcompartment. A quarrel arose between the Estate and the Mitchell’s over who had full ownershipover the money found in the locked compartment. The City of Everett, Washington filed a lawsuitto see who the rightful owner was. The Estate was ruled in favor of, by the trial court. Theyordered that the money should be returned, however, the Mitchell’s appealed. Again, the courtruled in favor of the Estate stating that the locked money still belonged to the Estate.Issue:Was there a contract formed between the offeror and offoree regarding the safe?Holding:The State Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court, stating a contract hadbeen formed between the seller and buyer under the objective theory of contracts.Rule:The State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Mitchell’s based on the Objective Theory ofContracts rule. This rule states that the intent of a contract is judge by what a reasonable personwould do. The parties both entered a contract knowing the facts surrounding the safe. Thecontents were unknown, and the seller had the intent to sell the safe knowing the contents insidewere unknown. The auction was set with no reservation of rights regarding the contents.