Chapter 14

Jacqueline Vargas
Milou Teeling
Nick Singer
Elizabeth Greeley
Imelda McClendon
Carson Noble
Sima Saadat
Christinna Splinter
Taylor Scavo
Danny O’Sullivan
Nicky Zier
James Bedotto


Chapter 14 Questions

5) Johnsons v Capital City Ford:
a) We agree with the plaintiff because the advertisement was extremely specific and left nothing open for negotiation; therefore it constituted an offer.
b) The court rules in favor of the plaintiff, he received his 1955 Ford as the advertisement stated plus about $1200 in damages. Since the case had gone on for so long, the plaintiff requested that he be given a 1956 (the newest model at the time) but was turned down by the court since the offer was for a 1955.

6) Although the decision of the court in Montgomery v. English was that a contract existed under the ‘mirror image rule’, we disagree. Since Montgomery did not initial many of English’s provisions in their counteroffer, including the deletion of the person property provision, the contract was not fully accepted. Instead English’s signing of the contract in only specific terms presents a new counteroffer, which was later declined by the Montgomery’s. Therefore the contract does not exist because it is not mirror image and was rejected.

Chapter 14 Page 379 Question 8.
Facts:
Frank Scheck offered to sell a piece of real estate to a buyer also agreeing to pay Marchiondo (a broker) a percentage of the sales price. It affixed a 6-day period to leave the offer open. Scheck sent a letter to Marchiondo revoking the offer. Marchiondo received the letter on the 6th day, the same day the offeree wanted to purchase the real estate. Marchiondo claimed that Scheck could not terminate the offer.
Proper termination (yes or no):
Scheck’s letter cannot be perceived as a proper termination of the offer because this can be considered a unilateral offer. Due to promissory estoppel, one cannot revoke an offer if a certain amount of work has been done by the other party. In this case Marchiondo worked in attempting to obtain the offeree’s acceptance and on the day he received the letter revoking the offer the offeree contacted Marchiondo wanting to purchase the real estate. This is unilateral offer is estoppel from revoking the offer because Marchiondo has reasonably relied on the offer and done a substantial amount of work in trying to sell the real estate
Appellate Court’s reasoning:
When a letter is placed in a mailbox, then acceptance becomes valid. Also, a revocation is solely accepted after it is received. Since Scheck changed his mind and called in the afternoon to accept it negates Marchiondo receiving the letter of revocation. The revocation is in essence valid because Marchiondo did not receive the letter. The appellate court found the letter was received and proper termination of the agreement existed.