Understanding Offer and Acceptance in Contracts: Common Law vs. UCC, Study notes of Law

Download Understanding Offer and Acceptance in Contracts: Common Law vs. UCC and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! 71 © This chapter is a modification of a work originally authored by Scott J. Burnham & Kristen Juras and published by CALI eLangdell Press under the BY-NC-SA 4.0 License. Modification by Eric E. Johnson. See “Rights, Licensing, Attribution, and More” at the end of this chapter. Chapter 3. Formation of a Contract under the UCC 3.1. Common Law Principles of Contract Formation. Common law has developed principles governing formation of a contract, including the requirement of mutual assent between the parties manifested through an offer and acceptance. Early in its development, the common law was strict, making it difficult at times to form a contract. 3.1.1. Under the early mirror image rule, the terms of the acceptance had to exactly mirror the terms of the offer in order for a contract to be formed. Furthermore, the manner of acceptance (promise or performance) had to be the same, as did the medium of acceptance (letter, telegraph, etc.). For example, if an offer to sell a horse was delivered to a potential buyer in a telegram, the buyer could accept the offer only by telegram, and not by letter and not by performance. However, even before the UCC was adopted, these strict rules of contract formation were being relaxed by the courts and legislatures. See, for example, Hammersberg v. Nelson, 224 Wis. 403 (1937) (oral acceptance of a written offer was sufficient to form a contract). Reflecting current common law, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 30 (1981) provides: “Unless otherwise indicated by the language or the circumstances, an offer invites acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances.” 3.1.1.1. Even though common law has relaxed the rules of offer and acceptance, many courts require a “mirror image” acceptance of the terms proposed. In other words, a purported acceptance is not effective if it adds new or differing terms from those proposed; instead, it is a counter-offer. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 59 (1981): “A reply to an offer which purports to accept it but is conditional on the offeror’s assent to terms additional to or different from those offered is not an acceptance but is a counter- 72 offer.” If a seller offers to sell a horse for $2,000, and the buyer replies, “It’s a deal if you include the bridle,” then there is no acceptance. The buyer’s response is a counter-offer. 3.1.2. At common law, a contract cannot be formed if essential terms are missing. In Drug Fair Northwest v. Hooper Enterprises, Inc., 733 P.2d 1285 (Mont. 1987), the court determined that a letter regarding the lease of property did not form a contract. Although the letter referenced the lease of a specific property and the rental amount, it did not specify the commencement date of the lease or the responsibility of the parties for taxes, insurance, repairs, maintenance and utilities. In addition, the letter provided for renewal terms, but failed to specify the rental amount for the renewal periods. 3.2. Relaxed Formation Rules under the UCC. As noted by the Montana Supreme Court in Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 7 P.3d 369, ¶ 28 (Mont. 2000), “the UCC rules governing sales agreements are far more permissive in this respect than the general common law rules governing contract formation.” The party trying to avoid a contract for the sale of grain argued that there was no mutual assent as to all material terms of the contract. The court cited § 2-204 to support its finding that a contract had been formed, emphasizing that: 1. Under § 2-204(1), a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract. 2. Under § 2-204(2), a contract may be found even though the moment of its making is undetermined. 3. Under § 2-204(3), even though one or more terms are left open a sales contract does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy. The court also noted the gap-filler provisions upon which it could rely under Part 3 of Article 2. The gap fillers are summarized commencing at Section 3.2.4.1 below. The court noted that the only term generally required is a quantity term, citing Comment 1 of § 2-201 (statute of frauds). Warning: The Official Comment to § 2-204 states: “The more terms the parties leave open, the less likely it is that they have intended to conclude a binding agreement, but their actions may be frequently conclusive on the matter despite the omissions.” Although the UCC is more flexible, it still must be established that there was an intent to agree on the part of both parties. 3.2.4 If a seller agrees to sell a particular widget, and the buyer agrees to buy it, it looks like they made an agreement, but the terms are certainly indefinite. As discussed above, 75 provision probably reflects prevailing commercial practice. A firm offer is irrevocable under 2-205 only if it meets several requirements: • the offeror must be a merchant; • there must be a writing signed by the merchant offering to hold the offer open; • the period of irrevocability must be for a reasonable time, which cannot exceed three months (and if longer than three months, the firm offer is enforceable up to three months but not beyond); and • if the writing containing the firm offer is provided by the offeree, the firm offer portion of the writing must be separately signed by the offeror. This fourth requirement is a good example of “reasonable expectations,” a concept found frequently in the Code, though that name for it is never used. The concept recognizes the reality that the parties do not read their contracts carefully, and puts the burden on the party offering an unusual or unexpected term to reasonably call it to the attention of the other party. [ 3-3] 3.3.3.2. If consideration is paid by the offeree to the offeror to hold the offer open, the terms of § 2-205 do not apply. Read the last two sentences of Comment 3 to § 2-205. [ 3-4—3-5] 3.3.4. Once an offer is made, a contract is formed when the offer is accepted. Acceptance is the manifestation by the offeree of assent to the terms of the offer. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 50. In other words, if the offeree does not clearly express assent to the terms that have been offered, there is no acceptance. 3.3.4.1. Under the common law, if an expression of “acceptance” contains any differing terms or additional terms than those contained in the original offer, this is a “counter- offer,” and not an acceptance. Example: Sue offers to sell John her car for $10,000. John replies that he’ll accept her offer, provided that she throws in a new set of tires. At common law, this is not an acceptance, but a counter-offer. 3.3.5. The UCC has modified the common law rule regarding “mirror acceptance,” most notably under § 2-207, commonly referred to as the “battle of the forms.” But let’s start with § 2-206. We will dedicate Chapter 4 to the intricacies of § 2-207. 3.3.5.1. As the common law developed, there was a departure from the mirror image rule regarding the manner of acceptance. Today, most jurisdictions allow acceptance in any reasonable manner and by any reasonable medium unless the offeror prescribes a 76 specific manner or medium of acceptance. Note: At common law, the offeror is still master of the offer, and can still insist on a specific manner or medium of acceptance. 3.3.5.2. Consistent with the development under common law, § 2-206(1)(a) allows an offeree to accept “in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances,” unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language or circumstances. [ 3-6] 3.3.5.3. Section 2-206(1)(b) provides that if an offer to buy goods seeks “prompt or current shipment,” the seller can accept by either a prompt promise to ship or by prompt performance. In other words, a reference to a prompt shipment is not to be construed as limiting the manner of acceptance to shipment, but also allows acceptance by promise. 3.3.5.4. Under § 2-206(1)(b), if there is an offer to buy goods for prompt or current shipment, and a seller responds by promptly sending a shipment, but the shipment is non- conforming, the shipment will nonetheless operate as an acceptance even though it does not mirror the terms of the offer. In other words, the seller accepts and breaches at the same time. However, if the seller does not want to breach, it can notify the buyer that the shipment is only an accommodation, in which event it becomes a counter-offer that the buyer can accept or reject. [ 3-7—3-9] 3.3.6. Under § 2-206(2), if an offeree accepts by beginning performance, and performance is a reasonable mode of acceptance, the offeree must also provide notice within a reasonable time of beginning performance. Failure to do so will allow the offeror to treat the offer as having lapsed before acceptance. Read Comment 3. © RIGHTS, LICENSING, ATTRIBUTION, AND MORE: This chapter is a derivative prepared by Eric E. Johnson of Chapter 3 of SALES AND LEASES: A Problem-based Approach, authored by Scott J. Burnham & Kristen Juras, published by CALI eLangdell Press in 2016, © 2016 CALI, licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 License, available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. That license contains a disclaimer of warranties. The original work is available at https://www.cali.org/books/sales-and-leases-problem-based-approach. Among the changes in this derivative work: this derivative has different typography and formatting, it been abridged with various material removed, notations have been added in, and the text has been revised and rewritten in places. A comparison with the original will show the full nature of modifications. This derivative is not endorsed by CALI. The book from which the original chapter came contains this notice: “This material does not contain nor is intended to be legal advice. Users seeking legal advice should consult with a licensed attorney in their jurisdiction. The editors have endeavored to provide complete and 77 accurate information in this book. However, CALI does not warrant that the information provided is complete and accurate. CALI disclaims all liability to any person for any loss caused by errors or omissions in this collection of information.” Those disclaimers and admonitions should be construed to apply vis-à-vis individual persons involved in the creation and preparation of the text. The suggested attribution from the original work is this: Scott J. Burnham & Kristen Juras, SALES AND LEASES: A Problem-based Approach, Published by CALI eLangdell Press. Available under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 License. This derivative work, prepared and published in 2017, is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 License, available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.