BCLS wrote: jlayne wrote: JCougar wrote:
jlayne wrote:How is anything ambiguous about saying, "I promise to pay you this, if you promise to do this..." ?
I don't think that this would be an example of ambiguity. It is an unambiguous offer looking to a bilateral contract. No?
If you're explicit like that, I'm not sure if R.2d 32 governs then. I'm not sure what the exact rule is that applies to that situation.
But it seems that such an offer is simply an offer looking for assent...because all the terms are already laid out. Why would it matter in that case if the offeree manifested his assent via either performance or a return promise? Either way, the offeror is equally bound. It's not to the offeror's detriment if you just start performing.
Well, I think in this case that the "option contract" language would not apply, because this is clearly a bilateral contract, although accepted by performance. So the question would then be, is the offeree bound to complete performance? If it were a unilateral contract, no... because it's at the option of the offeree. But what about in performance of a bilateral contract? I would think so... but I'm not sure where to find this.
I have been taught here at least that once a uni-K has been accepted by performance, according to section 45, we also have to read this in conjunction with section 62 (2) and the offeree now would be making a promise to complete performance and is in fact bound.
Doesn't seem right to me. Here, we were taught that in most jurisdictions, a unilateral contract that has been accepted by beginning of performance becomes an option contract that binds the OFFEROR, but it does NOT bind the offeree. He or she can continue to perform or stop performance at will. There is a three way split in jurisdictions...the other two approaches: the traditional approach is harsh and allows the offeror to revoke his offer at any time before the COMPLETION of performance. A newer rule, which is a minority, it becomes a bilateral contract at beginning of performance, and this binds BOTH the offeror and the offeree. (very small minority of jurisdictions.)
You have to keep in mind that the Restatement does not mirror the law in all jurisdictions, and it sometimes does not mirror the law in a majority of jurisdictions. It is not itself law.