Contracts question. Forum

[JaxSurfer]

-Offeror puts an ad in the paper looking for a lost cat.
-Offeree sees ad and buys cat food and other items to catch cat.
-Offeror dies two days before cat is found by Oferee.

Does offeree have a valid claim that a contract was formed? An offer of reward is an unilateral contract, however, does the death terminate the offer before the actual acceptance? Is there partial performance in a reward?

Thanks

[jrass]

-Offeror puts an ad in the paper looking for a lost cat.
-Offeree sees ad and buys cat food and other items to catch cat.
-Offeror dies two days before cat is found by Oferee.

Does offeree have a valid claim that a contract was formed? An offer of reward is an unilateral contract, however, does the death terminate the offer before the actual acceptance? Is there partial performance in a reward?

Thanks

Death terminates the offer. The issue you're supposed to analyze is whether the cat food constitutes a significant enough step to be an acceptance, because if there's an offer and acceptance before the death than the death no longer terminates the offer. There's a secondary issue of whether an advertisement can constitute an offer, but this is a much easier call than the above.

[PeanutsNJam]

-Offeror puts an ad in the paper looking for a lost cat.
-Offeree sees ad and buys cat food and other items to catch cat.
-Offeror dies two days before cat is found by Oferee.

Does offeree have a valid claim that a contract was formed? An offer of reward is an unilateral contract, however, does the death terminate the offer before the actual acceptance? Is there partial performance in a reward?

Thanks

Death terminates the offer. The issue you're supposed to analyze is whether the cat food constitutes a significant enough step to be an acceptance, because if there's an offer and acceptance before the death than the death no longer terminates the offer. There's a secondary issue of whether an advertisement can constitute an offer, but this is a much easier call than the above.

This is right, but for a unilateral contract, you can only accept by performance; he hasn't performed yet. The question is whether buying the cat food constitutes beginning performance such that an option contract is formed, where the offeror cannot rescind, but the offeree may rescind at any time. You can argue they bought the cat food in reliance and furtherance of performance, but him buying cat food doesn't really confer any benefit to the offeror (you can try to argue feeding his cat is a benefit, but that's so bullshit I doubt any prof would award pts). He could always just use the cat food to feed other cats, or return it to the store, or whatever.

[jrass]

-Offeror puts an ad in the paper looking for a lost cat.
-Offeree sees ad and buys cat food and other items to catch cat.
-Offeror dies two days before cat is found by Oferee.

Does offeree have a valid claim that a contract was formed? An offer of reward is an unilateral contract, however, does the death terminate the offer before the actual acceptance? Is there partial performance in a reward?

Thanks

Death terminates the offer. The issue you're supposed to analyze is whether the cat food constitutes a significant enough step to be an acceptance, because if there's an offer and acceptance before the death than the death no longer terminates the offer. There's a secondary issue of whether an advertisement can constitute an offer, but this is a much easier call than the above.

This is right, but for a unilateral contract, you can only accept by performance; he hasn't performed yet. The question is whether buying the cat food constitutes beginning performance such that an option contract is formed, where the offeror cannot rescind, but the offeree may rescind at any time. You can argue they bought the cat food in reliance and furtherance of performance, but him buying cat food doesn't really confer any benefit to the offeror (you can try to argue feeding his cat is a benefit, but that's so bullshit I doubt any prof would award pts). He could always just use the cat food to feed other cats, or return it to the store, or whatever.

That's what I meant but your analysis is probably clearer. I'm not sure if you're concerned about what benefits the offeror, though. If he had caught the cat and followed the offeror's instructions to bring the cat over, and got into a car accident on the way there killing the cat, he'd still get the money under the terms of this offer despite the offeror being in a worse position by having a dead cat instead of a lost cat. This is really a question about what's equitable, and whether purchasing cat food in and of itself is a substantial step towards finding a lost cat.

[pancakes3]

Getting into partial performance of a unilateral contract is getting lost in the weeds, and starting in the middle of the analysis. There are easy points here to be had in arguing that there isn't a contract - unilateral or otherwise. Argue whether there's an offer, argue whether there's acceptance, argue whether there's consideration, then going from there.

[FuturePanhandler]

Getting into partial performance of a unilateral contract is getting lost in the weeds, and starting in the middle of the analysis. There are easy points here to be had in arguing that there isn't a contract - unilateral or otherwise. Argue whether there's an offer, argue whether there's acceptance, argue whether there's consideration, then going from there.

I would say arguing whether there's consideration is getting lost in the weeds, but my professor had 2700 word limit, so we couldn't afford to address things every little thing, especially if there was no real issue there.

[PeanutsNJam]

Getting into partial performance of a unilateral contract is getting lost in the weeds, and starting in the middle of the analysis. There are easy points here to be had in arguing that there isn't a contract - unilateral or otherwise. Argue whether there's an offer, argue whether there's acceptance, argue whether there's consideration, then going from there.

I mean yeah, get the easy points about whether there was an offer at all, but those are points everybody gets. If you want to differentiate your exam answer, you need more nuanced analysis. Also referencing materials in class. There's a restatement on option contracts, stating that beginning performance of a unilateral offer forms an option contract. That's certainly worth points to address. Arguing whether there's acceptance is what I was talking about. Is buying cat food acceptance? There are also points in remedies. What are damages if a contract was formed? These are all points.

But don't change or add facts. "What if the cat dies en route back?" Well the ad didn't specify the cat had to be alive, but you could argue there was an implied condition that the cat must be alive. These things are probably not worth talking about if the facts don't cater to these issues.

[jrass]

Getting into partial performance of a unilateral contract is getting lost in the weeds, and starting in the middle of the analysis. There are easy points here to be had in arguing that there isn't a contract - unilateral or otherwise. Argue whether there's an offer, argue whether there's acceptance, argue whether there's consideration, then going from there.

This is true, but we're taking for granted that you would go through the motions on any question.

[FuturePanhandler]

Make sure that you know what your professor is asking. For mine, if the qestion simply asked "is there a contract?" he only wanted you to discuss issues regarding whether a contract was formed. You wouldn't have gotten extra points by talking about remedies, ways to avoid the contract, etc.

Always make sure you know what your professor wants.

[pancakes3]

Getting into partial performance of a unilateral contract is getting lost in the weeds, and starting in the middle of the analysis. There are easy points here to be had in arguing that there isn't a contract - unilateral or otherwise. Argue whether there's an offer, argue whether there's acceptance, argue whether there's consideration, then going from there.

I would say arguing whether there's consideration is getting lost in the weeds, but my professor had 2700 word limit, so we couldn't afford to address things every little thing, especially if there was no real issue there.

I think there's a huge issue over consideration. What's the bargained-for exchange? What is the benefit received at the detriment of the other? You can't just say "the reward". The offeror isn't giving out money so as to gain the benefit of other people buying cat food. The offeror isn't even giving out money to gain the benefit of people merely looking for the cat. The reward is given out in return for the cat. That's the consideration. Nothing the offeree does in the fact pattern would count as consideration.

In order to argue partial performance, the offeree would have needed to have cat in hand, and walking on his way to the offeror's place.

[White Dwarf]

If you've read the Pavel Enterprises case (where a construction company loading up its trucks counted as "commencement of performance"), you definitely want to discuss that, but the more common approach would be to consider that "mere preparation", especially given the nature of reward posters.

[JaxSurfer]

All great points. In this scenario, the professor's conclusion is that the offer could not be terminated due to the partial performance. I disagreed and lost major points for that.

[jrass]

All great points. In this scenario, the professor's conclusion is that the offer could not be terminated due to the partial performance. I disagreed and lost major points for that.

Contract disputes are generally state law so it's conceivable 2 different states would reach 2 different conclusions.

[MZaf]

this seems like a very simple acceptance of an offer question. 1) what kind of offer is this (bilateral or unilateral), 2) what is the offer for- if offer is to look for cat or help find cat- then it can be argued buying cat food is beginning performance of the offer; if the offer is to return the cat, acceptance cannot be done unless the cat has been found. 3) was there acceptance.

second issue is whether death of offeror, before acceptance, terminates the offer. Since its more likely the offer was unilateral and can only be accepted when the cat is returned, then the death of the offeror before the cat returns terminates the offer. The owner died before the cat was returned or notified of it being found, therefore the offer was terminated before it was accepted.

lastly, there is no reliance issue (although it can be argued- simply to show the losing argument in your answer) because beginning performance does not create an option contract in this situation, because the offer was to return the cat and not simply look for the cat. It is reasonable to think buying cat food might help find a cat, it can also be seen as pretty stupid. But you focus on the offeror, and it would not be foreseeable that someone would go out and buy cat food thinking that a person would be able to find his specific cat. If the person had already found the cat and then bought cat food, then you my have a claim for quasi-contract (unjust enrichment).

[PeanutsNJam]

All great points. In this scenario, the professor's conclusion is that the offer could not be terminated due to the partial performance. I disagreed and lost major points for that.

You weren't rewarded for arguing both side? ITT everybody is explaining how it isn't partial performance, and how preparation isn't sufficient to form an option contract, which I agree with. But maybe your professor wanted you to try and explain how on might argue it IS partial performance, which is why I brought up reliance.