Hole in One case contracts.pdf L 1. Read the attached case about a Pennsylvania golfer who saw a sign at a course advertising a prize of a new ca hole in one on that hole. As it turned out, the offer was for a tournament that had already ended but the signs h removed. Since the golfer was unaware of that fact, saw the offer, and he subsequently made a hole in one, the the car, reasoning the circumstances satisfied all the requirements for a valid offer and acceptance. 2. Read the short dissenting opinion, which argues that making a hole in one is a fortuitous matter of luck and not the "offer" and "performance" by the golfer in making the shot was simply a matter of chance, calculated to be 1 in therefore against Pennsylvania law prohibiting gambling and a (then) illegal act. 3. Who do you think was correct? Was it the majority or the dissent? Why? DO NOT CUT AND PASTE ANY INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET AND INCORPORATE IT AS YOUR ANSV Search entries or author Unread Reply Replies are only visible to those who have posted at least one reply. . Previous