ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES

1. NO. A valid acceptance must be unequivocal and definite. A purported acceptance which is conditional or with a limitation is a counteroffer and requires an acceptance by the original offeror before a contract can exist. However, if an offeree merely includes words which were already reasonably implied in the offer then the response is an acceptance and is not a counter offer. As applied to this particular case, the state merely pointed out that the buyer's name would have to be changed and indicated that removing the tracks would be inappropriate for the state. The court noted that by not removing the tracks the P & W would benefit.

2. YES. A contract was formed when the offer was accepted. When Jergins both completed and deposited the entry form the contract was created. There was nothing further required of her.

3. NO. A contract was created in this case. The written contract signed by Home Ice was an offer. When Ratliff signed the document on behalf of Big "R", a contract was in fact formed, despite the insertion of the additional term. Under UCC 2-207 (which applies because the ice was goods), the additional term is to be construed as a proposal for an addition to the contract, not as a counteroffer. This is a 1993 Arkansas case.

4. NO. Lambert made a counter offer by rejecting the original offer. Because of this, UCC section 2-207 was not applicable (the rejection was not merely a supplementation but rather a rejection of the boilerplate language in the original form). The Kysars accepted the counteroffer by delivering the requested trees in accordance with it. The term on the reverse side of the form on which the counteroffer was made, then, became part of the contract.

5. YES. This result may seem somewhat surprising. First, the UCC applies to this particular transaction. According to the UCC, a missing term (absence of the price in this case) is not fatal. It can be supplied. Secondly, a contract can result even though this particular document stated that it was not a contract! The basis for this is that the UCC stipulates that acceptance can occur in any reasonable manner under the particular circumstances. In this case, the beginning of performance by Estate Motors was the acceptance. In other words, Estate Motors communicated acceptance (the day after the order was taken) by placing its order for Barto's MBZ.

6. YES. As a general rule of law, silence is not a valid acceptance. However one exception to this general rule is that silence can be viewed as an acceptance in those situations wherein the offeree's conduct leads the offeror to assume that the silence was intended as an assent (acceptance). In this particular case the trial court ruled that a contract was created because Koop reasonably could have understood that Renner was accepting the offer. Note, Renner did not explicitly reject the offer and even subsequently commented favorably on a resume sent to him by Koop.

7. NO. In this case, the plaintiff contended that the oral comuunications created a contract, whereas the defendant claimed that it never unequivocally agreed to provide day care. This dispute creates an issue of fact, that being whether the parties ever actually agreed and a summary judgment should not, therefore, have been granted!

8. YES. According to the mail box rule the acceptance occurs when it is properly dispatched in an authorized manner. In this case that would have occurred at the time the postal agent picked up the acceptance from the out-going mail. The mail box rule dictates that when parties to an agreement deal via mail, the reply accepting the offer may be sent by the same medium and that the contract will come into existence when the acceptance is mailed, properly addressed and beyond the acceptorÕs control. Contrast this case with the facts in problem case # 10.

9. NO. State Farm, the offeror, authorized Casto to respond by mail which happened. However the mailed acceptance was not properly dispatched and thus did not form a contract per the mailbox rule. The envelope did not bear any postage. The acceptance was ineffective when sent.

10. YES. Under the "mailbox rule," a binding contract was formed at the time Soldau deposited the release into the mail. The fact that Soldau later removed the release from the mail does not change this result.