Random Contracts Question Forum

[qwerty101]

Hi all,

I encountered this while reviewing contracts:

SS 43 of the Restatement states that an offeree's power of acceptance is terminated when the offeror takes definite action inconsistent with an intention to enter into the proposed contract and the offeree acquires reliable information to that effect.

Assuming that the offeree had knowledge of the action and that it is a definite action that is taken, what is the result if the action is "not considered to be an act inconsistent with an intention not to enter into a contract"?

Thanks

[bwh8813]

Hi all,

I encountered this while reviewing contracts:

SS 43 of the Restatement states that an offeree's power of acceptance is terminated when the offeror takes definite action inconsistent with an intention to enter into the proposed contract and the offeree acquires reliable information to that effect.

Assuming that the offeree had knowledge of the action and that it is a definite action that is taken, what is the result if the action is "not considered to be an act inconsistent with an intention not to enter into a contract"?

Thanks

That's like a triple-negative. If it's not inconsistent then it is either consistent or irrelevant. If it's consistent with an intention not to enter a contract it's the same as the RST you mention. If it's irrelevant, it has no bearing.

If that last "not" is erroneously in there, as I suspect, then the offeree can still accept and offeror has not revoked. That'd be like offeror offered to sell his car. While the offer is open, he took it in for a tune-up. That's not necessarily inconsistent with an intention to enter the contract -- unlike if he sold it to someone else.

[qwerty101]

Okay great, that's what I thought about that final "not" being there.

So just to be sure, in the event that the final "not" isn't erroneously there, it would mean that the offer has been effectively revoked, correct?