Bilateral & Unilateral contracts Forum

[m311]

Then your professor is an idiot. Restatement section 50: "Acceptance by performance requires that at least part of what the offer requests be performed or tendered and includes acceptance by a performance which operates as a return promise." No logical twisting can justify saying that part of the performance your offeror wanted was for the offeree to get money out of his bank and walk to his house. If offeree had just handed him the money at the moment of the offer he would have gotten everything he wanted. As to the unilateral offers turning into bilateral contracts- I don't know how much more evidence you need. At this point you're just disagreeing with the restatement out of spite. It's not debatable.

[surenough]

Then your professor is an idiot. Restatement section 50: "Acceptance by performance requires that at least part of what the offer requests be performed or tendered and includes acceptance by a performance which operates as a return promise." No logical twisting can justify saying that part of the performance your offeror wanted was for the offeree to get money out of his bank and walk to his house. If offeree had just handed him the money at the moment of the offer he would have gotten everything he wanted. As to the unilateral offers turning into bilateral contracts- I don't know how much more evidence you need. At this point you're just disagreeing with the restatement out of spite. It's not debatable.

Once again you are wrong. If the offeree can show that he took substantial effort to come up with the $ in such a short period of time, he can rely on § 87(2). You should really learn to read the Restatements in full.

Comment (b) to Restatement 50 b. Acceptance by performance. Where the offer requires acceptance by performance and does not invite a return promise, as in the ordinary case of an offer of a reward, a contract can be created only by the offeree's performance. See Comment b to § 32. In such cases the act requested and performed as consideration for the offeror's promise ordinarily also constitutes acceptance; under § 45 the beginning of performance or the tender of part performance of what is requested may both indicate assent and furnish consideration for an option contract. In some other cases the offeree may choose to create a contract either by making a promise or by rendering or tendering performance; in most such cases the beginning of performance or a tender of part performance operates as a promise to render complete performance. See §§ 32, 62. Mere preparation to perform, however, is not acceptance, although in some cases preparation may make the offeror's promise binding under § 87(2).

§ 87(2)
(2) An offer which the offeror should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of the offeree before acceptance and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding as an option contract to the extent necessary to avoid injustice.
Reliance: But circumstances may be such that the offeree must undergo substantial expense, or undertake substantial commitments, or forego alternatives, in order to put himself in a position to accept by either promise or performance.

[m311]

§ 87(2)
(2) An offer which the offeror should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of the offeree before acceptance and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding as an option contract to the extent necessary to avoid injustice.
Reliance: But circumstances may be such that the offeree must undergo substantial expense, or undertake substantial commitments, or forego alternatives, in order to put himself in a position to accept by either promise or performance.

First of all, the above does not apply to showing up at someone's door. What substantial expense? What substantial commitment? Even if one of these things existed, it had to have been foreseen by the offeror that it would happen. In this case it didn't even happen so what the hell was going through your mind that made you think what you found was relevant? Surely you must see that if you stretch "substantial commitment" to mean "any action" then this:

See §§ 32, 62. Mere preparation to perform, however, is not acceptance, although in some cases preparation may make the offeror's promise binding under § 87(2).

would be a contradictory statement.

Secondly, you've clearly completely forgotten where this line of argument started because now you're quoting things that disprove your contention that a unilateral offer can not turn into a bilateral contract.

[surenough]

§ 87(2)
(2) An offer which the offeror should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of the offeree before acceptance and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding as an option contract to the extent necessary to avoid injustice.
Reliance: But circumstances may be such that the offeree must undergo substantial expense, or undertake substantial commitments, or forego alternatives, in order to put himself in a position to accept by either promise or performance.

First of all, the above does not apply to showing up at someone's door. What substantial expense? What substantial commitment? Even if one of these things existed, it had to have been foreseen by the offeror that it would happen. In this case it didn't even happen so what the hell was going through your mind that made you think what you found was relevant? Surely you must see that if you stretch "substantial commitment" to mean "any action" then this:

See §§ 32, 62. Mere preparation to perform, however, is not acceptance, although in some cases preparation may make the offeror's promise binding under § 87(2).

would be a contradictory statement.

Secondly, you've clearly completely forgotten where this line of argument started because now you're quoting things that disprove your contention that a unilateral offer can not turn into a bilateral contract.

No I remember. I am just very bored with this. I already made my point. Now I have a life to get back to. Maybe you should consider doing the same.

[Hyder]

§ 87(2)
(2) An offer which the offeror should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of the offeree before acceptance and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding as an option contract to the extent necessary to avoid injustice.
Reliance: But circumstances may be such that the offeree must undergo substantial expense, or undertake substantial commitments, or forego alternatives, in order to put himself in a position to accept by either promise or performance.

First of all, the above does not apply to showing up at someone's door. What substantial expense? What substantial commitment? Even if one of these things existed, it had to have been foreseen by the offeror that it would happen. In this case it didn't even happen so what the hell was going through your mind that made you think what you found was relevant? Surely you must see that if you stretch "substantial commitment" to mean "any action" then this:

See §§ 32, 62. Mere preparation to perform, however, is not acceptance, although in some cases preparation may make the offeror's promise binding under § 87(2).

would be a contradictory statement.

Secondly, you've clearly completely forgotten where this line of argument started because now you're quoting things that disprove your contention that a unilateral offer can not turn into a bilateral contract.

No I remember. I am just very bored with this. I already made my point. Now I have a life to get back to. Maybe you should consider doing the same.

lets not make this K debate into a personal war. Im goin to prof office hours, as I'm more confused now.

[reasonable_man]

Um kids... The restatements... They ain't law... Relax... Chill out...

Keep in mind that taking a hard line on just about anything when it comes time to take your tests is likely a bad fucking idea. If there is any reasonable argument that can be made; make it. Don't fall in love with your case, its a disaster waiting to happen.

I have a case right now.. Commercial dispute.. We are 4.5 years deep into the litigation.. Coming up on trial.. Plaintiff's attorney wants 4 million. We are willing to pay about 65k. The problem... plaintifff's attorney, an intellegent, well respected practicioner, made a fatal mistake about a year ago... He fell in love with his case.. This love affair has caused him to look at only one side and evaluate the case the entirely wrong way... The reality of his case hit him in the face at a recent proceeding and it was very uncomfortable for everyone present.. He realized he is going to have to settle this case for a figure that will likely not even cover his client's legal costs, because he won't win at trial and even if he does, the measure of his damages is too low for it to be worth the expense of trial..

Avoid calling your opponent an "idiot." Listen to his points, make your arguments and constantly reevaluate your own case. The evidence in the case I am working on was there years ago; opposing counsel just refused to look at it.. Don't make that mistake in an oral argument, don't make it when you write a memo for your first real employer, don't make it when you answer a test question and don't make it in a study group convo or a TLS chat for that matter... Don't fall in love with your case. You're going to be a lawyer.. You should be able to walk away from your case and argue your opponents case on a moments notice... If you can't do that, something is wrong.

[m311]

You should be able to walk away from your case and argue your opponents case on a moments notice... If you can't do that, something is wrong.

No, not always. Not a single source- restatement, case, dictionary, nothing supported what he was saying and he even finally contradicted it himself to try to make some side point. He obviously knew he was wrong, but couldn't admit it. If there were any evidence at all of something other than what I said, I'd be glad to learn it. But "you're wrong because I'm using my own special definition of a term" is not a respectable argument.

[reasonable_man]

You should be able to walk away from your case and argue your opponents case on a moments notice... If you can't do that, something is wrong.

No, not always. Not a single source- restatement, case, dictionary, nothing supported what he was saying and he even finally contradicted it himself to try to make some side point. He obviously knew he was wrong, but couldn't admit it. If there were any evidence at all of something other than what I said, I'd be glad to learn it. But "you're wrong because I'm using my own special definition of a term" is not a respectable argument.

ok.

[surenough]

Um kids... The restatements... They ain't law... Relax... Chill out...

Keep in mind that taking a hard line on just about anything when it comes time to take your tests is likely a bad fucking idea. If there is any reasonable argument that can be made; make it. Don't fall in love with your case, its a disaster waiting to happen.
quote]

You should be able to walk away from your case and argue your opponents case on a moments notice... If you can't do that, something is wrong.

No, not always. Not a single source- restatement, case, dictionary, nothing supported what he was saying and he even finally contradicted it himself to try to make some side point. He obviously knew he was wrong, but couldn't admit it. If there were any evidence at all of something other than what I said, I'd be glad to learn it. But "you're wrong because I'm using my own special definition of a term" is not a respectable argument.

Reasonable_man: I think that is well-stated. Any answer can be the right answer as long as you can reason it out. That is why different Courts can rule on the same thing differently. An A paper always sees all sides of the argument.


m311: yes, everybody is entitled to your opinion. I think the key to success is to keep clinging to that way of thinking and not to see what other arguments could be made outside your own.