Oliver sent a letter with the land valuation and also referred to their

Oliver sent a letter with the land valuation and also

This preview shows page 20 - 22 out of 67 pages.

he had the money ready for purchase. Oliver sent a letter with the land valuation and also referred to their previous discussion - Southworth responds: “I accept your offer”. Oliver says there was no offer. Southworth sues.
Image of page 20
-Oliver argues: there is a second part of the letter that speaks of another property and another family. BUT: If you can sever the second part of an offer and the original offer is valid and independent then you are entitled to do so. -There is objective manifestation of agreement → contract.-Is it an offer? Look at language and context. Court says implied contract because of the multitude of correspondence and the fact that the letter from Oliver refers totheir previous discussion. 1. Limited class of offeree - Yes, one on one letter and conversations 2. Definiteness of proposal - Yes, all that was lacking in contract was the land evaluation/price. Had everything else prior. 3. Language of commitment - Yes, definite terms of letters, past conversation (“will buy, will sell”) multiple references to buying and selling. - Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store - Store puts out two advertisements saying the 1st person to come to the store can get a Fur coat/scarf for $1. Lefkowits brings $1 the first time, they say the deal is only for women, then brings it the second time for the scarf and they say no, you already know the rule. - General rule is that an advertisement is not an offer; exception that avoids the MAP. The ad in this case avoids by saying only 1 person can get the offer → satisfies language of commitment and MAP. - 1st ad Does not satisfy ‘definiteness of proposal’ but 2nd ad does because it says what the scarf would be worth, that makes it a unilateral offer that is accepted by performing the act of being the first person there with $1. - Court treats the rule of only women as irrelevant because it was not in the ad and therefore not manifest. - Leonard v. PepsiCo - Leonard sues for a jet he saw in the PepsiCo advertisement, argues it was an offer to be accepted by collecting 7,000,000 pepsi points. - 1) Limited class of offeree? Yes. You would have to collect all of those points, not everyone will do that. 2) Definite proposal? Arguably yes, the ad says “Drink pepsi. Get stuff”. In the advertisement it does not speak of the order form. 3) Language of commitment? “Offer not available in all areas. See details on specially marked packages” - not something a reasonable person would see, but we read it against the offering party. - Still - court says, no it’s a joke. Its a solicitation of an offer, not an offer. The offer is made through the catalog. - If it had gone to jury, would they have decided a reasonable person would think that this was an offer? - Battlecam v. Rodriguez 10. Acceptance (225-269) - A firm (legally binding) offer turns on the facts and circumstances of each situation - If a document stipulates agreement it is implicitly requiring communication, notification, and notice of the promise so that the minds can meet.
Image of page 21
Image of page 22

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 67 pages?

  • Summer '11
  • Jacobson
  • The Land, ........., Hamer, G.W. Thomas Drayage

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture