1. Meyer, after seeing a sign on Chosnyka's land reading "FOR SALE 95 ACRES" and running a title search, sent Chosnyka an offer to buy the land as described by its legal description. The offer required acceptance by returning a singed copy within 10 days. Chosnyka singed and returned the copy the next day, along with a paper stating that he accepted w/ the following conditions: (1) that the closing date be within 60 days and (2) that the land's legal description was accurate but the acreage stated in it was only an estimate. The next day Meyer went to the property and discovered an underground pressurized gas line on it. Because of this and the lack of a warranty that the property was exactly 95 acres, he refused to buy the property for the amount stated inthe offer. Chosnyka insisted on that price, and when Meyer refused to pay, sold the property for less to someone else. He then sued Myer for breach of contract.
Was Chosnyka's acceptance w/ conditions really a counteroffer?
2. McCarthy listed some real estate for sale with her broker. When the price had been reduced to $125, 000, Madaio made an offer of $100,000. McCarthy counteroffered $110,000, and they agreed to a sale at $105,000. The contract was to be effective when Madaio returned a singed formal contract. On January 12, McCarthy signed a formal contract prepared by her agent, and it was delivered to Madaio on the same day. Madaio signed it the next day but did not mail it back to McCarthy until January 18. On January 16, McCarthy called Madaio and said she was withdrawing the offer. Madaio said he had already signed the contract, and intended to go ahead with the offer. He sued for specific performance of the contract.
Did Madaio effectively accept the offer before McCarthy withdrew it?
1. In order to determine whether Chosnyka's acceptance with conditions was a counteroffer, we need to understand the basic principles of contract law. A counteroffer is defined as a response by the offeree (the person receiving the original offer) that introduces new or different terms, thereby rejecting the original offer and creating a new offer.
In this case, Chosnyka's acceptance included two conditions: (1) a request for a closing date within 60 days, and (2) a statement that the acreage stated in the legal description was an estimate. Although these conditions modify the original terms of the offer, they do not introduce new terms that are completely different from the original offer. The request for a closing date and the statement about acreage are considered ancillary or minor conditions that can be negotiated without resulting in a counteroffer.
Therefore, Chosnyka's acceptance with conditions is not considered a counteroffer. Instead, it is viewed as a response to the original offer that keeps the negotiation process open. Meyer can choose to accept Chosnyka's conditions, reject them, or propose counterconditions. If Meyer rejects the conditions, he can still proceed with the original offer if he does not invoke other reasons for refusal, such as the discovery of the gas line.
2. To determine whether Madaio effectively accepted the offer before McCarthy withdrew it, we need to consider the timing and communication involved. In contract law, acceptance is generally effective upon communication to the offeror.
In this case, McCarthy made a counteroffer by proposing a sale at $110,000 after receiving Madaio's offer of $100,000. Madaio then agreed to the counteroffer, and the contract was to be effective upon his return of a signed formal contract.
On January 12, McCarthy signed the formal contract and delivered it to Madaio. However, Madaio did not sign and return the contract until January 18. During this time, on January 16, McCarthy called Madaio and withdrew the offer.
Since Madaio had already signed the contract before McCarthy's withdrawal, he can argue that he effectively accepted the offer before it was withdrawn. The key factor in this case is whether communication of acceptance took place before the withdrawal. If Madaio's signed contract was sent by mail on January 18, it could be argued that his acceptance was effective at the moment of mailing, satisfying the requirement for communication.
Ultimately, this question would likely depend on the specific laws and interpretation of contract law in the relevant jurisdiction.