Yes, he might, but when the facts of the hypo say "oral K for sale of tigers", it does not mean "there MIGHT be a contract".midwesternlife33 wrote:The "confirmations" were sent simultaneously, does this implicate things at all? I would think seller would have an argument that he never assented to the terms of the oral K at all.
convoluted 2-207 question Forum
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:16 am
Re: convoluted 2-207 question
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:23 pm
Re: convoluted 2-207 question
The facts didn't say that, it went through the entire negotiation, which amounted to what looked like an oral K for the sale of tigers. I didn't want to type out a 3 page fact pattern.ogurty wrote:Yes, he might, but when the facts of the hypo say "oral K for sale of tigers", it does not mean "there MIGHT be a contract".midwesternlife33 wrote:The "confirmations" were sent simultaneously, does this implicate things at all? I would think seller would have an argument that he never assented to the terms of the oral K at all.
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:16 am
Re: convoluted 2-207 question
Then it's a completely different question. Can't oversummarize the facts.midwesternlife33 wrote:The facts didn't say that, it went through the entire negotiation, which amounted to what looked like an oral K for the sale of tigers. I didn't want to type out a 3 page fact pattern.ogurty wrote:Yes, he might, but when the facts of the hypo say "oral K for sale of tigers", it does not mean "there MIGHT be a contract".midwesternlife33 wrote:The "confirmations" were sent simultaneously, does this implicate things at all? I would think seller would have an argument that he never assented to the terms of the oral K at all.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:23 pm
Re: convoluted 2-207 question
Right, I wasn't asking for specific answers to my practice question (if I was I would have posted the hypo or something), just looking for pertinent issues and how they hypothetically work out.ogurty wrote:Then it's a completely different question. Can't oversummarize the facts.midwesternlife33 wrote:The facts didn't say that, it went through the entire negotiation, which amounted to what looked like an oral K for the sale of tigers. I didn't want to type out a 3 page fact pattern.ogurty wrote:Yes, he might, but when the facts of the hypo say "oral K for sale of tigers", it does not mean "there MIGHT be a contract".midwesternlife33 wrote:The "confirmations" were sent simultaneously, does this implicate things at all? I would think seller would have an argument that he never assented to the terms of the oral K at all.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login