Chapter 14 In-Class Exercise

James Daugherty, Vanessa Santana,
Amaris Jones-Wiggins, Elizabeth Van’t Hof,
Meghan O’Brien, Oliver Gordon,
Laura Kruberg

Chapter 14 (p. 378-379)

5. Johnson v Capital City Ford Co
We find Johnson’s argument to be more persuasive. Advertisements are offers to deal unless stated clearly, definitely, and explicitly in the advertisement. Ford stated that the customer would only have to pay sales tax and physical damages must be repaired at owners expense. The car can only have normal wear and tear. This offer is only good until the end of September. The offer to deal only pertained to a certain model.

Courts Ruling: Ruled in Favor of Plaintiff (Johnson).

6. Montgomery v. English
Under the mirror image rule, the terms of the acceptance must be the same as the terms of the offer. There were several discrepancies between the offer and the acceptance; therefore, the contract was not enforceable.

8. Marchiondo v. Scheck
Acceptance is valid when a letter is placed in the mail box; a revocation is only accepted when received. Although Marchiondo received the letter of revocation, Scheck changed his mind and called in the afternoon to accept. Because Marchiondo did receive the letter, the revocation is valid.
The appellate court found that because the letter was received, there was proper termination of the agreement.