Professor Paul J. Carrier Contracts I Class 3 Professor Paul J. Carrier MYLEGS.org ©2018 Paul J. Carrier

Main Topics of Contracts I 1. We are still in “Formation” (Week 3 of 7 weeks) MYLEGS.org ©2018 Paul J. Carrier

Main Topics of Contracts I 1. We are still in “Formation” (Week 3 of 7 weeks) 2. Last time: the three components of Acceptance MYLEGS.org ©2018 Paul J. Carrier

Main Topics of Contracts I 1. Formation (7 weeks) – briefly review 2. Last time: the three components of Acceptance 3. These are: current intent (objective); communicated; some form of definiteness of terms – same as the components of offer? (pretty close) MYLEGS.org

Main Issues of Class 2 1. Formation (7 weeks) – briefly review 2. Last time: the four elements and the first one: the OFFER 3 These are: current intent (objective); communicated; some form of definiteness of terms – same as the components of offer? (pretty close) 4. a) current intent (objective) - same MYLEGS.org

Main Issues of Class 2 (& 3) 1. Formation (7 weeks) – briefly review 2. Last time: the four elements and the first one: the OFFER 3. current intent (objective); communicated; definiteness of terms? – same as the components of offer? (pretty close….) 4. a) current intent (objective) – same b) communicated** – same, but a few new laws, changes, issues to consider MYLEGS.org

Main Issues of Class 2 1. Formation (7 weeks) – briefly review 2. Last time: the four elements and the first one: the OFFER 3. current intent (objective); communicated; definiteness of terms? – same as the components of offer? (pretty close….) 4. a) current intent (objective) – same b) communicated** – same, but a few new laws, changes, issues to consider c) responsive (could be “mirror image;” could be “close enough”) MYLEGS.org

Main Issues of Class 2 & 3 1. Formation (7 weeks) – briefly review 2. Last time: the four elements and the first one: the OFFER 3. current intent (objective); communicated; definiteness of terms? – same as the components of offer? (pretty close….) 4. a) current intent (objective) – same b) communicated** – same, but a few new laws, changes, issues to consider i) how offeror expects it, if specified MYLEGS.org

Main Issues of Class 3 1. Formation (7 weeks) – briefly review 2. Last time: the four elements and the first one: the OFFER 3. current intent (objective); communicated; definiteness of terms? – same as the components of offer? (pretty close….) 4. a) current intent (objective) – same b) communicated** – same, but a few new laws, changes, issues to consider i) how offeror expects it, if specified ii) mailbox rule, if not specified MYLEGS.org

Main Issues of Class 3 1. Formation (7 weeks) – briefly review 2. Last time: the four elements and the first one: the OFFER 3. current intent (objective); communicated; definiteness of terms? – same as the components of offer? (pretty close….) 4. a) current intent (objective) – same b) communicated – same, but a few new laws, changes, issues to consider i) how offeror expects it, if specified ii) mailbox rule, if not specified iii) no mailbox rule if specified or an option contract MYLEGS.org

Main Issues of Class 3 1. Formation (7 weeks) – briefly review 2. Last time: the four elements and the first one: the OFFER 3. current intent (objective); communicated; definiteness of terms? – same as the components of offer? (pretty close….) 4. a) current intent (objective) – same b) communicated – same, but a few new laws, changes, issues to consider i) how offeror expects it, if specified ii) mailbox rule, if not specified iii) no mailbox rule if specified, or an option contract iv) must be still open (not revoked, lapsed, rejected, counter-offered, death or incapacity of either… ) for a good list, see Restatement (Second) Contracts §§ 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, & 48 MYLEGS.org

Interesting Distinction Common law option contracts MYLEGS.org

Common law option contracts Expressly created – look for separate consideration (or statement of same paid) MYLEGS.org

Common law option contracts Expressly created – look for separate consideration (or statement of same paid) Fla. Stat. version in 672.205 (same as U.C.C. 2-205) Firm Offer MYLEGS.org

Common law option contracts Expressly created – look for separate consideration (or statement of same paid) Fla. Stat. version in 672.205 (same as U.C.C. 2-205) Firm Offer Made by a Merchant MYLEGS.org

Common law option contracts Expressly created – look for separate consideration (or statement of same paid) Fla. Stat. version in 672.205 (same as U.C.C. 2-205) Firm Offer Made by a Merchant If in writing (this includes attribution to who made it) MYLEGS.org

Common law option contracts Expressly created – look for separate consideration (or statement of same paid) Fla. Stat. version in 672.205 (same as U.C.C. 2-205) Firm Offer Made by a Merchant If in writing (this includes attribution to who made it) THEN……. It need not be supported by consideration (the third element, covered later) MYLEGS.org

Common law option contracts Expressly created – look for separate consideration (or statement of same paid) Fla. Stat. version in 672.205 (same as U.C.C. 2-205) Firm Offer Made by a Merchant If in writing (this includes attribution to who made it) THEN……. It need not be supported by consideration (the third element, covered later) Interesting on Two Bases: MYLEGS.org

Common law option contracts Expressly created – look for separate consideration (or statement of same paid) Fla. Stat. version in 672.205 (same as U.C.C. 2-205) Firm Offer If in writing If signed by the party against whom it is being enforced THEN……. It need not be supported by consideration (the third element, covered later) Interesting on Two Bases: 1. it does not fall within the application of the “Mailbox Rule” (Class 3) MYLEGS.org

Common law option contracts Expressly created – look for separate consideration (or statement of same paid) Fla. Stat. version in 672.205 (same as U.C.C. 2-205) Firm Offer If in writing If signed by the party against whom it is being enforced THEN……. It need not be supported by consideration (the third element, covered later) Interesting on Two Bases: 1. it does not fall within the application of the “Mailbox Rule” (Class 3) 2. U.C.C. version does not need consideration (Chapter V – Class 5) MYLEGS.org