Prior Posts: Offer and Acceptance
Offeror as Master of the Offer
(1) In contracts it is always the offeror who decides the means of acceptance (And it appears that they can decide this after the fact, as well. Meaning that an offeree can say they accepted an offer via phone call and the offeror can say, “well no, we didn’t explicitly say so, but we wanted via email”.)
Yes (the offeror is the master of the offer) and no (as to your illustration). If the offeree is justified in believing that the offeror invited acceptance by a phone call, then the offeree has the power to accept by a phone call. The offeror can’t turn around after acceptance and say we wanted e-mail.
Being the master of the offer means that the offeror has the power to determine what is communicated to the offeree. But, such manifestations are interpreted from the position of a reasonable offeree .
(2)Why couldn’t Pepsico argue that they put out specific catalogs and order forms that were the only means of acceptance for their offer and that if the jet was not in the catalog and order form that it would be reasonable to assume that it was not being offered? Even an 11-year-old (or the parent buying the points) should be able to reasonably see that…even if it is disappointing.
They could so argue. But, did the ad mention the catalog and order form? Would the 11-year-old not be justified in believing that all it took was collecting the Pepsi points?
As with all reasonable person analyses, lots of facts to argue and not always one fact that trumps all the rest.
____________
Liquid Death invokes Pepsico in its commercial
____________
Offer- From whose perspective?
The “After joke at Panthers game, ‘Catman’ to get truck” story is located at http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2578808
After joke at Panthers game, ‘Catman’ to get truck
Associated Press
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Greg Good, the Carolina Panthers fan who dresses up as “Catman” at home games, will receive a new pickup truck from Fox Sports after an on-air practical joke during a preseason game went awry. Gary Rothstein/Icon SMIMaybe “Catman,” right, will give Randy “Zip” Pierce and his dog Ostend a ride in the new truck. During the second half of the Aug. 24 game between the Panthers and Miami Dolphins , Fox Sports announcers Dick Stockton and Daryl Johnston started billing a car giveaway as a reason for fans to stay tuned after the teams’ starters left the game. |
_______________________
Was a contract formed here?
August 29th, 2019
Student with nothing to lose asks Lil Uzi Vert to pay his tuition, rapper agrees
Do you agree with the analysis in the link blow:
________________________
A Contract in Seinfeld
September 12th, 2019
I am not sure if you’re a Seinfeld fan, but I was watching an episode and I stumbled upon an funny example of consideration and possibly promissory estoppel. In the episode, Elaine strains her neck trying to get a bike down from the wall in a toy store. In pain, she impulsively claims that she would give up the bike to whoever fixes her neck. When Kramer gives her a treatment that makes her feel better, he demands the bike despite it being a girl’s bike. Elaine reluctantly allows him to have it, but the next day, her neck pain soon returns worse than ever, so she demands the bike back.
They have the character Newman decide to should get the bike: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsbgwNe4Rv4
Seinfeld — Newman’s Bicycle Verdict
Newman applies the Judgment of Solomon to solve a dispute between Elaine and Kramer. From Seinfeld (Season 7, Episode 13).
——
The judge says there was an exchange, so promissory estoppel is not relevant. If the court can find a contract, they won’t address promissory estoppel. The parties recognized the existence of a contract – the service was provided and the bicycle was tendered. Elaine feels that Kramer breached the contract. As a remedy, she demands the bicycle back. She feels it would be unjust enrichment if Kramer can keep the bike as he provided an inadequate service. Or she wants to be put back where she was before they entered into the contract (her reliance interest). Before they entered into the contract, she owned the bike. She might have been better off if she had demanded that Kramer pay for chiropractic services to fix her neck(her expectation interest).
_______________________
Mailbox Rule
Concerning the mailbox rule, what would be the effect of placing an acceptance and rejection in the mail at the same time? More realisticly, what would happen if an acceptance was mailed following placement of a rejection in the mail? I assume the answer will be that whichever arrives first is binding, but will you please clarify?
You should not assume the law is logical. The rejection has no legal effect until received. The acceptance is effective immediately when mailed. The contract is formed if the acceptance is mailed before the rejection is received. Of course, this answer assumes that the offerree wasn’t aware that he rejected the offer. [e.g., mails a letter such as “I’ll give you $50 less than your offer for it” and then regrets that and immediately mails “I’ll buy it.”]
___________________
Acceptance
n class you said that once a conversation ends, the power of acceptance terminates. The casebook, however, talks about how an offer remains open for a reasonable period of time. Which one is it?
(RER) Why do you think there is a difference? It is unreasonable (say the courts) for one to believe that an offer remains open after the end of a conversation. In other words, the reasonable time ends at the end of a conversation. As you learned in torts, it all depends on what “reasonable” means.
___________
An “experiment” on offer and acceptance
Would you have agreed?
___________
An approach to Offer/Acceptance
- K Formation Summary [O + A + C/R = K ]:
-
- Was there an offer?
- Offer or mere negotiations [§24 v. §26]?
- Firm Offer (written offer, to be held open for a period of time 2-205 )?
- Was there a valid acceptance?
- Mirror image (Non-goods or perhaps UCC by analogy)
- Goods (2-207 Battle of The Forms)
- Mailbox Rule [§63 ]
- Acceptance via Silence? [§69 ]
- Is there valid consideration [§71 ]?
- A bargain, not nominal, not illusory, not already a legal duty?
- Is the K the type of K that can be enforced w/out consideration:
- promises to pay a debt despite statute of limitations
- promise to pay a debt despite bankruptcy
- Promise to perform under a K that is/was voidable?
- Reasonably Foreseeable Detrimental Reliance? [§45 Unilateral Ks, §87 Option Ks, §90 Bilateral Ks, §139 Reliance As An Exception to S of F]
- Is the agreement for goods or services?
- Non-goods , RST Ks & case law governs
- Goods , UCC governs supplemented when silent by the common law & RST Ks
- Was there an offer?