Team Presentations-Law1-Fall2015

Chapter 12 - Offer and Acceptance

special thanks to Mark Wilson and his team

Olsen v Johnston

1; Explain the following - To form a legally enforceable contract, there must be (1) identifiable parties capable of contracting; (2) their consent; (3) a lawful object; and (4) a sufficient cause or consideration. Section 28-2-102, MCA. The parties' consent must be free, mutual, and communicated by each to the other. Section 28-2-301, MCA. Consent is not determined by the subjective, undisclosed intent of the parties

In contract law of acceptance, the offeree's notification to the offeror that the offeree agrees to be bound by the terms of the offeror's proposal. Although Olsen did a mirror acceptance, Johnson claimed that Olson did not follow the terms of how to respond to the Offer.

Extract from Johnsons Offer:

I propose that you sell me your 1/3 share of the 78 acre Eagle Creek property for $150,000.00. If you choose not to sell, you may purchase my 2/3 share for $300,000.00 (Mirror Acceptance).

Explain XXX - the following:  Johnston argues that her offer required Olsen to reply to Townsend. Johnston contends that Olsen rejected the terms of her offer when she replied directly to Johnston. Johnston argues that Olsen instead presented a counteroffer when Olsen replied directly to Johnston. Johnston denies having accepted Olsen's counteroffer. Thus she contends that the parties formed no enforceable contract

Johnson is correct however the court ruled Olsen could not respond to Townsend when there was no contact information for Townsend. So Olsen did what any reasonable person would do, that is respond to Johnson and Johnson acknowledge receipt of the acceptance within the time frame.

Explain the following XXXX -  "Johnston did not make clear through her words and associated conduct that a reply to Townsend represented the exclusive permissible mode of acceptance. Johnston consequently did not create a condition precedent to Olsen's acceptance. The parties' mutual consent was completed therefore when Olsen accepted Johnston's offer in a reasonable manner. The offer and acceptance satisfied the three other essential elements of a contract. The parties had capacity to contract, § 28-2-201, MCA; the agreement had a lawful object — the sale of the property, § 28-2-601 to -602, MCA; and the agreement called for the exchange of sufficient consideration, § 28-2-801, MCA."

The court ruled that Olsen had satisfied the all the elements of acceptance:

1. 1.       Identifiable parties capable of contracting.
2. 2.       Their consent.
3. 3.       A lawful object.
4. 4.       A sufficient cause or consideration.

Though the offer had a specific way to accept the offer, the court ruled that under the Statute of frauds this had been satisfied when Johnson responded to Olsen acknowledging that Johnson had received it.

Explain XXX the following  - "We consider only the offeror's objective manifestations of consent as expressed by words and conduct. Bitterroot Int'l Sys., ¶ 33. An offer must exclude clearly and definitively all other modes of acceptance to create a condition precedent to acceptance"

Using Bitterroot Int'l Sys. v. W. Star Trucks, Inc., 2007, as a precedence, an offer must exclude clearly and definitively all other modes of acceptance to create a condition precedent to acceptance". Meaning Johnson must have listed all the ways NOT to respond to her offer.

Explain XXXX  the following - "Moreover, the parties' exchanged letters satisfied the statute of frauds. A contract for the sale of real property must be memorialized by a written note or memorandum subscribed by the party to be charged. Section 28-2-903, MCA. The note or memorandum does not have to be in any particular form and may consist of several writings"  -

Johnson had made an offer in righting to Olsen. Olsen responded in righting with her mirror acceptance. Johnson acknowledge receipt of the acceptance within the time frame. Therefore Johnson and Olsen had complied with Montana’s Statute of Frauds.

Explain who won the case and Affirmed - XXXX

 Olsen won on 3/19/12 and it was affirmed by the District Court of Appeals on 2/5/13

I believe the court could see there was a meeting of the mind and Olsen did what any reasonable person would do. I believe Johnson had second thoughts after sending Olsen the letter but failed to rescind the offer.

presented by the very excellent MW et al.

thanks MW

J J