Was there an

Ofer

?

Eements of a "a id Offer# $ Ob%ect i!e In tent to be bo und $ &efin ite and Cer tain ' er ms $ Commun icated to of fere e

ust con!e t*e

power to close t he deal

+

Lucy v . Zehm er

– ob% conduct , offer

Owen v. Tunison

– indicate to be bound- stmt of sein. price is O' offer

W as the Ofer

Revoked

?

Possibe means of 0e!ocation# $ effe cti!e 1*e n t*e off eree

receives

a

manifestation

of

intention

not to be bound

– $ mu st be

conveyed

to t*e offeree+ I rr e! oc ab e Of fe rs 2+  er c* an t – 3 4$ 45 6 – 7i rm Of f e r ( 8 m on - / s / b merc*ant- promisin. to *od open) 4 + O p t i o n

supported by consi d.

8+ Opt ion ind uci n. r ei anc e 9 mus t be in 1ritin.: 043;< =+ &et rim ent a r ei anc e b of fer or – req + reasonabe expectation 6+ Uni ate ra o ff er 1* ere o ff ere e *a s be. un performance – must .et reasonabe time to compete> but preparation doesn?t count @+ ai bo x 0u e – onc e ac cep tan ce s ent b mai> no re!oe+

4. Dre nnan Paving – made error in bidding

promise reasonab seen to induce reiance of

def and sub. character

is bindin. on if in%ustice can be a!oided b enforcement+

Did the Ofer

Terminate

?

apse of 'ime (reasonabe amount if none specified) Offeree dies- &estruction of contract sub%ect matter

W as the Ofer

Rejected

?

$ 0e %e ct io n b  co un te r$ of fe r (

mere in!uiry

!+ counter)- $ 0e %ec tio n is ef fe ct i! e 1* en re c? d-

"

Options



Offeree can re%ect and t*en sti accept ater unti option expires- EC# Offeror detrimenta reies on offeree? s re%ection

"

Mirror Image Rule

– AD !ariation in terms (C) acts as a re%ection F a counter$offer

Is there any

Pre- Contractual Liability

?

$ isrepr esentat ion $ 0estitu tion – 1 *ere a par t> t*rou. * t*e c ourse of ne .otiat ions> d espite not *a !in. ! aid a .reem ent> *as conferred a benefit on t*e ot*er part –

Precis ion Te sting Labs

(a1arded b/c not mutua benefit) – needs to be restored- *o1e!er> if a mutua benefit> restitution is una!aiabe – S

ongbird #et Ltd.

$ 0eiance – e!en 1/o G 1*en# (i) cear pro mise> (ii) reasonabe and f oreseeabe reiance on promise> (iii) unconscionabe in%ur if non$enforcement+ –

$yberchron –

ne.otiations broe do1n after H pressured into performin. duties pre$contract+ Court rues in%ustice 1ere to occur b/c out a t*at mone 1/ no G to reimburse+ $ Preiminar Bindin. A.reement – etter o f inten t ma be bindin. so on. as

definite% consideration is e&changed%

and

parties intend as such

+- 4 tpes of preim – 'ribune I , fu bindin.> binds bot* parties to utimate contractua ob%ecti!e- 'ribune II , a.ree to

some

ma%or terms> a 

mutual commitment to negotiate

J – commits parties O D to dut to ne.otiate in .ood fait*- if no a.reement> parties can abandon 1/o issue+

Was there

Acceptance

? Acceptance must be denite and unequivocal.

@CL: Mirror Image

- ot*er1ise counter- $ An conduct t*at 1oud e!idence a

meeting of the minds

is acceptance –

$onroe filter

- Mailbox Rule

– "a id 1*en SE'- o maibox rue for options F in!aid if offer said no +B+0+ $ Accept t*en re%ect

