8AM Class Chapter 14 Questions 5, 6, & 8

Caitlin Cross, Brady Litteral, Gina Hernandez, Chris Hurst, John O'Donoghue, Evan Hochwald, Dominique Aljabi

5. We found Leland Johnson's argument more persuasive because the advertisement was "clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation...constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract" (Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc.). The Lefkowitz case establishes the precedent when an advertisement is specific and clear, it constitutes an offer. When, this offer is accepted, the contract is complete. We rule in favor of Leland Johnson. We could not find the ruling on this case.

6. Under the mirror image rule no contract existed between the two, only a counter offer because the terms of the contract did not have a mirror image of the original offer.

8. Scheck's letter was a proper termination of the offer because the offer was revoked before its acceptance. The courts reasoning is that the broker doesn't get any commission even though it was exclusive.