Dickinson v. Dodds Relevant Facts: On the10th of June Def Dodds signed and delivered a memorandum to Pl Dickinson. Said memo contained language, agree to sell; for the sum; and a description of real property. It also contained specific date, time of acceptance. PL discovered Df was eliciting the sale elsewhere and submitted a letter of acceptance to Df’s mother-in-law at 7:30 p.m. prior to the evening of the deadline. Df never received the letter. A duplicate was delivered to Df the next morning, but Df refused to accept it. Df had sold the property the previous day. Issue(s): Whether the time limit acts solely as an express offer to purchase, or whether Df is free to sell to another in lieu of a formal acceptance? Rule: There is no requirement that an express or actual withdrawal of the offer is mandated. To constitute a K, the two minds were at one, at the same moment in time, there was an offer continuing up to the time of acceptance. If there was no such continuing offer, then the acceptance comes to nothing. Court Rationale: Pl knew that Df was no longer minded to sell the property to him as plainly and clearly as Df had told him I withdraw my offer. Pl stated he heard that Df was seeking the purchase from another, and thinking that the Df could not withdraw his offer, Pl sought to fix him to it. Pl went to m-i-law’s with a letter of acceptance knowing that the Df had changed his mind. Although the offer was expressly left open to PL until 9 a.m. it did not bind Df until accepted. Pl did not accept and therefor no binding contract existed between the parties. Two minds were not in agreement at one time, the time of acceptance. Nudum pactum - a naked pact or voluntary promise Ardente v. Horan Rule: Where there is offer to form bilateral contract, offeree must communicate his acceptance to offeror before any contractual obligation can come into being; mere mental intent to accept offer, no matter how carefully formed, is not sufficient, and acceptance must be transmitted to offeror in some overt manner. To be effective, acceptance of offer must be definite and unequivocal, and acceptance may not impose additional conditions on offer, nor may it add limitation. Acceptance of offer may be valid despite conditional language if acceptance is clearly independent of condition. Where, in negotiating purchase and sale of residential property, prospective purchaser, in his purported acceptance of vendors' offer of sale, indicated that he was concerned as to whether specified items would be included as part of transaction, purchaser's response to vendors' offer did not constitute acceptance, but was mere counteroffer, and no contractual obligation was created.
Pages to are hidden for
"Dickinson v. Dodds"Please download to view full document