Contracts Hypo help!

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
atticusforlife
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:41 pm

Contracts Hypo help!

Postby atticusforlife » Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:51 pm

Here's a basic hypo

(a) On March 1, the offeror mailed a written offer to offeree. Offer said nothing about time or manner of acceptance. Offeree received it on march 2. On march 4, offeror changed his mind and mailed revocation of offer to offeree. Received by offeree on march 6. In in the interim, on March 5, offeree had mailed acceptance to offeror. Acceptance was received on March 7. Do parties have K? Why or why not?

(b) Facts are same from (a) except that offer stated, "this offer will remain open for acceptance until march 10. Your written acceptance must be received by me on or before that date." Do parties have K?

My thoughts. I don't think there's an offer in (a) bc the terms are not specific enough with date.
I think there's a K in (b). Not sure about my reasoning or how to think this through. Please help!

maudio129
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:08 pm

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby maudio129 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:44 pm

I'll take a shot at it (However, my contracts class focuses solely on common law doctrines, so I can't go into any possible UCC issues).

For my answer, i will be using "A" as the offeror, and "B" as the offeree

a) (Since you said in the hypo that there is an offer, I will not be discussing any issues that deal with whether or not the "offer" from the offeror was genuine and would indeed create an immediate power of acceptance with the offeree)

The issue is whether there is a binding contract between A and B. To be a binding contract, there must be an offer, a valid acceptance of that offer, and consideration. Since it is established that there is an offer, we must find out if B's response to the offer was a proper acceptance. An acceptance must be a definite and unequivocal manifestation of assent to enter into a bargain. Since A did not indicate a method of acceptance, a reasonable method of acceptance may be used. B's response to that offer was reasonable because he used the same method of communication that A used to send the offer, the mail.

A will argue that there no contract was formed because he revoked his offer prior to the acceptance by B. However, B will argue that A's revocation was not valid because he did not hear of the revocation, either directly (r2d 42), or indirectly (r2d 43). Since B did not hear of A's revocation before he mailed his acceptance, and under the mailbox rule set out in section 63 of the r2d, acceptance takes effect as soon as it is put out of the offeree's possession (as long as it is properly stamped and addressed). However, as a matter of public policy, do we really want to bind A to a contract in which he does not want to enter. In this case, A, as the master of the offer, could have allocated the risk of uncertainty by prescribing a time, place, and mode of acceptance. Since A did not do any of the above, and because B properly accepted the offer in accordance of A's rules, there should be a binding contract between A and B

b) (I won't go into detail here, but) an offeror may revoke his offer, EVEN IF he stated it would be open for a specified time (See Dickenson v Dodds). However, if the promise is furnished by some sort of consideration, then under section 87 of the r2d, an option contract is formed, where the offeror loses his power to revoke the offer (it must be in writing).

Hutz_and_Goodman
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:42 am

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby Hutz_and_Goodman » Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:14 pm

there's no contract with either hypo. there's no consideration. the first is an offer for a bilateral contract, the second is an offer for a option contract. in the second case if the letter was a signed formal document that would help (there's a consideration exception for option contracts).

User avatar
buckythebadger
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:08 am

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby buckythebadger » Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:07 am

Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:there's no contract with either hypo. there's no consideration. the first is an offer for a bilateral contract, the second is an offer for a option contract. in the second case if the letter was a signed formal document that would help (there's a consideration exception for option contracts).


For A, don't we need to know if this was a bilateral or unilateral contract? There is nothing in the hypo that suggests either. I think you're assuming its bilateral because it was written. But could the written offer not have said "I promise X, if you peform Y?" In that case it would be a unilateral contract and the offeror could revoke the offer at any time prior to performance. If this is a bilateral contract, is this not a valid contract because the offer was accepted via the mailbox rule?

Dead Parrot
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby Dead Parrot » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:29 pm

maudio129 wrote:I'll take a shot at it (However, my contracts class focuses solely on common law doctrines, so I can't go into any possible UCC issues).


b) (I won't go into detail here, but) an offeror may revoke his offer, EVEN IF he stated it would be open for a specified time (See Dickenson v Dodds). However, if the promise is furnished by some sort of consideration, then under section 87 of the r2d, an option contract is formed, where the offeror loses his power to revoke the offer (it must be in writing).


For question b, there is no option contract (no consideration paid to keep over open) so so offerer can revoke. However since the revocation wasn't received before the offeree put his acceptance in the mail, there is still a contract for the same reasons as there are in question a.

User avatar
jgc02a
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:17 am

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby jgc02a » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:21 pm

atticusforlife wrote:Here's a basic hypo

(a) On March 1, the offeror mailed a written offer to offeree. Offer said nothing about time or manner of acceptance. Offeree received it on march 2. On march 4, offeror changed his mind and mailed revocation of offer to offeree. Received by offeree on march 6. In in the interim, on March 5, offeree had mailed acceptance to offeror. Acceptance was received on March 7. Do parties have K? Why or why not?

(b) Facts are same from (a) except that offer stated, "this offer will remain open for acceptance until march 10. Your written acceptance must be received by me on or before that date." Do parties have K?

My thoughts. I don't think there's an offer in (a) bc the terms are not specific enough with date.
I think there's a K in (b). Not sure about my reasoning or how to think this through. Please help!

**assuming there is valid consideration** also in regards to you saying that you're not sure about the dates in (a) what exactly do you mean? assuming this offer has valid consideration then you just need to pay attention when acceptance was sent, revocation received, whether it was an option contract, merchant firm offer etc... your hypo is lacking facts brah

a) there is a contract. acceptance is effective upon dispatch (mailbox rule). revocation is effective upon receipt. Offeree accepted before revocation was received. Thus, there is a valid k.
b) the offeror expressly conditioned acceptance upon receipt (essentiallly nullifying the mailbox rule). Acceptance was received by offeror March 7. Revocation was received by offeree on March 6. Therefore, the revocation was received first and is effective. There is no k.

User avatar
Icculus
Posts: 1421
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:02 am

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby Icculus » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:31 pm

jgc02a wrote:
atticusforlife wrote:Here's a basic hypo

(a) On March 1, the offeror mailed a written offer to offeree. Offer said nothing about time or manner of acceptance. Offeree received it on march 2. On march 4, offeror changed his mind and mailed revocation of offer to offeree. Received by offeree on march 6. In in the interim, on March 5, offeree had mailed acceptance to offeror. Acceptance was received on March 7. Do parties have K? Why or why not?

(b) Facts are same from (a) except that offer stated, "this offer will remain open for acceptance until march 10. Your written acceptance must be received by me on or before that date." Do parties have K?

My thoughts. I don't think there's an offer in (a) bc the terms are not specific enough with date.
I think there's a K in (b). Not sure about my reasoning or how to think this through. Please help!

**assuming there is valid consideration** also in regards to you saying that you're not sure about the dates in (a) what exactly do you mean? assuming this offer has valid consideration then you just need to pay attention when acceptance was sent, revocation received, whether it was an option contract, merchant firm offer etc... your hypo is lacking facts brah

a) there is a contract. acceptance is effective upon dispatch (mailbox rule). revocation is effective upon receipt. Offeree accepted before revocation was received. Thus, there is a valid k.
b) the offeror expressly conditioned acceptance upon receipt. Acceptance was received by offeror March 7. Revocation was received by offeree on March 6. Therefore, the revocation was received first and is effective. There is no k.


jgc02a, aren't you an 0L? I don't think you should be giving hypo advice considering you've never been in a contracts class nor law school class.
I'm not going to try and answer since my contract law is rusty and we never really did the mailbiox rule.

User avatar
jgc02a
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:17 am

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby jgc02a » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:54 pm

Icculus wrote:
jgc02a wrote:
atticusforlife wrote:Here's a basic hypo

(a) On March 1, the offeror mailed a written offer to offeree. Offer said nothing about time or manner of acceptance. Offeree received it on march 2. On march 4, offeror changed his mind and mailed revocation of offer to offeree. Received by offeree on march 6. In in the interim, on March 5, offeree had mailed acceptance to offeror. Acceptance was received on March 7. Do parties have K? Why or why not?

(b) Facts are same from (a) except that offer stated, "this offer will remain open for acceptance until march 10. Your written acceptance must be received by me on or before that date." Do parties have K?

My thoughts. I don't think there's an offer in (a) bc the terms are not specific enough with date.
I think there's a K in (b). Not sure about my reasoning or how to think this through. Please help!

**assuming there is valid consideration** also in regards to you saying that you're not sure about the dates in (a) what exactly do you mean? assuming this offer has valid consideration then you just need to pay attention when acceptance was sent, revocation received, whether it was an option contract, merchant firm offer etc... your hypo is lacking facts brah

a) there is a contract. acceptance is effective upon dispatch (mailbox rule). revocation is effective upon receipt. Offeree accepted before revocation was received. Thus, there is a valid k.
b) the offeror expressly conditioned acceptance upon receipt. Acceptance was received by offeror March 7. Revocation was received by offeree on March 6. Therefore, the revocation was received first and is effective. There is no k.


jgc02a, aren't you an 0L? I don't think you should be giving hypo advice considering you've never been in a contracts class nor law school class.
I'm not going to try and answer since my contract law is rusty and we never really did the mailbiox rule.


I''m your real dad so stfu brah..my analysis was good for the most part you nut!

Pokemon
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:58 pm

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby Pokemon » Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:13 pm

My gut feeling is that if this is the only info. provided is that contract exists since purpose of mailbox rule is certainty and to allow offeree to comfortably act on the promise without later being surprised by a revocation. Offeror is the one bearing the risk if offeree has acted on the promise and offeror has now changed his mind.

MissJewsbury
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:35 am

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby MissJewsbury » Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:59 pm

I think b. may be an exception to the mailbox rule. Look it up, but I think that upon exercising an option contract, contract is accepted upon receipt by offeror not on postmark date. So, no k.

User avatar
icecold3000
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:50 am

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby icecold3000 » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:32 am

I think maudio129's analysis was spot on for hypo (a), so I'll take a shot at hypo (b).

(b) Facts are same from (a) except that offer stated, "this offer will remain open for acceptance until march 10. Your written acceptance must be received by me on or before that date." Do parties have K?


NOT AN OPTION. An option K is irrevocable until expiration. An option K can be formed by consideration, firm offer (UCC 2-205), reliance (R2d 87), or in the case of a unilateral K, by beginning performance (R2d 45). There is nothing in these facts suggesting any one of these possibilities. Thus I am working under the assumption that this is not an option K.

MANNER OF ACCEPTANCE. Unless otherwise provided, an offer invites acceptance in any reasonable manner (R2d 30 & 60). The offer here does not prescribe an exclusive means of acceptance. It only provides that the offer expires on March 10th. An expiration date clause probably does not qualify as an exclusive means of acceptance. Therefore, a letter will probably qualify as a reasonable means of acceptance in most circumstances.

PROMISE OR PERFORMANCE. Unless otherwise provided, the offer is indifferent as to whether the offeree accepts by promise or performance (R2d 32 & 62). Nothing in the offer suggest the offeror preferred promise or performance. Thus, the offeree's March 5th promise should suffice for acceptance by promise.

REVOCATION OR ACCEPTANCE. An offer can be accepted at any time prior to revocation, expiration, or death of a party (I can't think of the R2d off the top of my head). Because this is not an option K, the mailbox rule is applicable. Here an attempted revocation occurred on March 6. But the manifestation of assent (acceptance) occurred on March 5th when the offeree placed the letter in the mailbox. Because the acceptance occurred one day before the revocation, a valid contract was formed at the moment that the offeree placed the offer in the mailbox (assuming that it was addressed correctly). Therefore, hypo B is enforceable.

BeachandRun23
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:20 am

Re: Contracts Hypo help!

Postby BeachandRun23 » Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:18 am

I took contracts last semester so memory may not be great but...

a) Valid contract. The offer is specific enough, don't worry about that BS. The mailbox rule says that acceptance is valid when mailed. It was mailed before revocation was received.

b) Option contracts are not valid without consideration. There's certain ways to get around this but your facts are not specific enough to know if we have them. Still it seems like there is a valid contract from A.

Did you professor teach the mailbox rule? That's what this whole hypo hinges on, so look that up. Should be in the restatement. Unless you are using the UCC. But you didn't even say if this was a contract for services or for goods.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: axel.foley, LandMermaid, mrro, vorely and 7 guests