Question: Theresa Polk discussed selling her residence and 181 acres of
Theresa Polk discussed selling her residence and 181 acres of land to BHRGU Avon Properties, LLC. Avon presented an offer for the land. Polk responded by providing two counteroffers, both stipulating that Avon accept before February 7, 2005, at 5 p.m. Avon responded by providing an offer that materially changed terms in the counteroffers and delivered it before the February 7 deadline. Avon also delivered a $25,000 check. Polk's attorney accepted the check but later wrote "VOID" on it instead of cashing it. Avon filed a suit seeking specific performance. The trial court found in favor of Avon, determining that the counteroffers constituted option contracts. Polk appealed, arguing that the counteroffers were not enforceable contracts because they lacked consideration and were therefore offers that required Avon's acceptance. Avon argued that the $25,000 check constituted consideration for the option contracts, making the contracts enforceable. Do you believe that an option contract was formed? Why or why not?
Answer to relevant QuestionsDr. Griffith allowed his life insurance to lapse after May 15, 2007. According to US Life's life insurance policy, he was granted a 31-day grace period after which he would be able to reinstate his insurance by paying the ...When Holloman applied for a job at Circuit City, she signed a "Dispute Resolution Agreement" (DRA) that stated: "This agreement requires you and Circuit City to arbitrate certain legal disputes related to your application ...Go back to the discussion of contracts that cannot be disaffirmed by minors, and explain the policy reasons that support each of the exceptions. Can you make an argument for any additional kinds of contracts that should not ...Horst Grasz reached an agreement with Bert Allen Toyota, Inc., to purchase a 2003 Toyota Tacoma for $16,971, less a $1,000 rebate, plus taxes and fees. The sales manager entered the numbers into a computer and came back with ...The plaintiff and defendant engaged in phone calls and e-mails that unambiguously indicated an intent to be bound to all necessary terms of a transaction. The district court recognized these recorded communications between ...
Post your question