Contracts 6 / 3

Explanation
The answer is supplied by the statement that a reasonable person in P's position would conclude that A was not serious. Under the objective theory of contracts and the reasonable person approach, there is no contract.

Explanation
The parties here clearly agreed that this was a sham arrangement and therefore intended that no legal consequences would attach to the writing.

Explanation
If a doctor promises to follow a certain procedure, the doctor has made an enforceable commitment. On the facts, the doctor appears to have made such a promise. If so, she has a cause of action. The most that can be argued on the other side is that this is a question of fact.

Explanation
This is similar to the cases involving ads for the sale of goods. First, it is doubtful if there is language of commitment. The fact that the Tribune will refuse certain types of advertisements does not mean that it will accept all others. In any event, there is no statement of quantity. Thus, an offer was not made.

Explanation
As a common law proposition an announcement that an auction will be held is deemed to be a statement of intention. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, even after the goods have been put up for sale, the auctioneer may withdraw the goods from sale except where the auction is "without reserve" and a bid is received within a reasonable time.

Explanation
P's first communication was only an inquiry. D then asked for an offer.When P named a sum P made an offer. But this was rejected by D. P then made an additional inquiry. D's statement is not language of promise or commitment. Rather D is saying that an offer for less than $56,000would not be
considered. Thus, the only offer that is made is P's offer to pay $56,000which was made when P said "I accept". This offer was not accepted.

Explanation
Although Bmay have been legally bound to return the watch so that there is no consideration, there is an additional reason why Bmay not recover. B did not know of the offer or intend to accept.

Explanation
B clearly knew of the offer. The issue is intent to accept. Under one view, the offeree may testify to his or her state of mind. If B testifies to having a subjective intent to accept and is believed, B will prevail. Under a second view,
there is a presumption that Bintended to accept, and B is not permitted to testify as to subjective intention. The presumption is rebuttable. On the facts, whether the presumption is rebutted is probably a question of fact.

Explanation
Although a reasonable person could conclude that this was an offer looking to a series of unilateral contracts, it could also be concluded that the act called for was the discontinuance of publication and that there was one unilateral contract with a series of performances. In either event, abstaining from publication for a week is a condition precedent to A's obligation to pay $10 each week.
The main difference is that if A's words amounted to an offer looking to a series of unilateral contracts, A would be free to revoke prospectively. This is not true under the second analysis.

Explanation
A is not contractually bound under the rules of acceptance by silence because A did not have a reasonable opportunity to reject the services. In addition under the rules of property law A would not be guilty of an act of wrongful
dominion by occupying the house because the structure is A's.

Explanation
Since A was unconscious, A did not expressly or impliedly agree to anything. Bis entitled to a quasi-contractual recovery measured by the reasonable value of B's services.

Explanation
It depends upon whether a reasonable person in the position of A would conclude that Bexpected to be paid for the work to be done prior to the contract or that B was doing the preliminary work in hopes of obtaining the
contract. The custom of the trade might supply the answer.

Explanation
Although there seems to be an offer and an acceptance by an act of dominion, the Restatement, Second, states that the offeree is not bound by the offered terms where, as here, they are manifestly unreasonable. If there is no contract there is a conversion and A should have the option of suing in contract, tort, or quasi-contract, but nevertheless the Restatement takes the position that A should be limited to a reasonable value recovery in this contractual action.

Explanation
Because the counter offer is effectivewhen it is received, and was lost, it does not act as a rejection. The letter of acceptance is authorized (reasonable)and is effective when sent (2 P.M.) even though it was lost. Under the majority
view, a revocation is effective when it is received. Therefore, there is a contract. Under the minority view that a revocation is effective when sent, the result would
be different.

Explanation
Despite the quoted language, the offer is revocable. There is no consideration to support the promise of irrevocability. Uee § 2-205 does not apply, because the case involves real property. The rejection terminated the
revocable offer as did the revocation.

Explanation
Because no time period is stated, the offer is open for a reasonable time. Because the offer is to sell at a fixed price in a fluctuating market, it is clear that the offer should be open for a relatively short period-long enough to give the offeree a reasonable opportunity to consider the offer.This time had long since elapsed when the attempted acceptance occurred.

Explanation
The manifest purpose of the offeror is the conviction of the criminal. This can happen until the statute of limitations expires. When this happens depends upon the law of a particular jurisdiction, but under the facts it is clear that it had not.

Explanation
The offeror may stipulate in the offer that the power of acceptance shall terminate upon the happening of a certain event. If the event happens before the acceptance, the power of acceptance lapses even though the offeree is not
informed that the event has occurred.

Explanation
When an offer is made in a face to face or telephone conversation or in any situation where there are direct negotiations, the offer is deemed, in the absence of a manifestation of a contrary intention, to be open only while the parties are conversing.

Explanation
A revocable offer looking to a series of contracts may be terminated prospectively. Under the majority view, an adjudication of incompetency followed by the appointment of a guardian terminated the offer even though B was unaware of what transpired. Under this view,Ais liable only for the first delivery.

Explanation
The II equal publicity" doctrine does not apply because A knew of B's existence and address. A was bound to personally notify B.

Explanation
The payment of $100 makes the offer irrevocable. Under the modem view, the counter offer does not terminate the original offer. Therefore it can still be accepted by B.

Explanation
Whether the 7 days are measured from Jan. 2 or Jan. 3, an acceptance sent on Jan. 9 is timely if sent in an authorized (reasonable) manner, which is the case here. In computing 7 days, the day from which the computation is made is not ordinarily considered.

Explanation
Under the provisions of UCC § 2-311 there is a contract.

Explanation
The traditional common law rule is that an agreement to agree as to a material term renders the agreement too vague and indefinite to be enforced (void). But here the quoted words indicate that the parties have agreed to make a good faith effort to reach agreement. Abreach of that promise will amount to a breach of contract.

Explanation
Although there are two views on the intention to accept an offer to a unilateral contract such as a reward offer, under either view B cannot recover. Under the older view it is clear that Bdid not subjectively intend to accept. Under the newer view of the Restatement (Second), if Bmanifests an intent not to accept prior to A's Performance, B is not entitled to recover.