Please see the Fact Pattern below. Please answer the two questions at the end of

Question

Please see the Fact Pattern below. Please answer the two questions at the end of the Fact Pattern (1 paragraph for each question).To receive full credit for your response, I will expect to see 1 paragraph each for whether or not there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration. Each paragraph must contain at a minimum 5 sentences. This means that there should be a minimum of 15 sentences in your response. The concepts for contract law continue to build on one another. At this point these are the main questions you should be asking yourself each time:Does the Contract need to be in writing? (Some contracts must be in writing to avoid the "Statute of Frauds" problem.)What type of law applies? Is it goods? (If it is goods, then UCC applies. If it is not goods then the common law applies)Were the elements of a contract met? Was there an offer? Was there acceptance of the offer? Was there consideration? Was there performance?

Fact Pattern:

On June 1, Betty faxed FeedCo a letter, expressing an interest in purchasing pigs. In response, FeedCo faxed Betty an unsigned document entitled “Pig Sales Agreement,” which, among other things, provided: 

Buyer agrees to purchase from Seller, and Seller agrees to sell to Buyer, approximately 1050 pigs each month during the term of this agreement, at a purchase price of $33.25 per pig. Buyer shall purchase all of her feed requirements from Seller. The term of the agreement is three years. The agreement will be interpreted in accordance with the law of Washington.

On June 10, Betty signed and returned the document to FeedCo after making the following changes: (1) adding "+/- 20 head" to the phrase regarding the number of pigs to be purchased; (2) adding "for so long as the prices of FeedCo’s feed are competitive with other suppliers" to the sentence requiring her to purchase her feed requirements from FeedCo; and (3) changing the choice of law provision from Washington to California.

On June 25, FeedCo presented Betty with a revised document signed by FeedCo. The revised document included Betty’s change about competitive prices, and provided a contract commencement date of June 29. It did not include Betty’s changes about the number of pigs to be purchased or about the choice of law provision. Betty again made those two changes to the document, initialed her changes, signed it, and returned it to FeedCo.

On June 29, Betty agreed to accept, and actually accepted, delivery of 1050 pigs from FeedCo for $33.25 per pig.

On July 15, Betty received a further revised document signed by FeedCo. Once again, it did not include her changes about the number of pigs to be purchased or about the choice of law provision. At this point, Betty advised FeedCo that she would not accept any more pigs because they did not have a contract.

Can FeedCo prevail in a breach of contract action against Betty? Discuss.

(Your answer must include 3 paragraphs at a minimum, one paragraph for each of Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration. In your paragraph you must define Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration; apply the facts to the legal definition; and make a conclusion if there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration.)

Explanation / Answer

NO FEEDCO CAN NOT PREVAIL BREACH OF COTRACT AGAINST BETTY AS ITS OFFER WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY BETTY. BETTY SIGNED WITH TWO CHANGES HENCE IT IS A COUNTER OFFER AND IT HAS NO VALIDITY UNTIL ACCEPTED BY ORIGINAL OFFERER. ACCEPTING OF DELIVERY MEANWHILE ON 29TH JUNE BY BETTY IS AN IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE THAT FEEDCO IS AGREE ON TWO CHANGES AS BETTY HAS INFORMED ABOUT THIS TO FEEDCO WHITHIN TIME THERE FORE BEFORE 29TH JUNE.

OFFER:- OFFER BY FEEDCO IS TO SELL 1050 PIGS/MONTH @ $33.25 FOR EACH PIG, ALL FEED WILL BE PURCHASED FROM SELLER AND LAW OF WASHINTON WILL PREVAIL. BETTY MADE A COUNTER OFFER THAT ' + / - 20 PIGS PER MONTH ,PURCHASE FEED IF COMPETITIVE PRICE TO OTHER SUPPLIER AND LAW OF CALIFORNIA WILL PREVAIL IN PLACE OF WASHINGTON. FEEDCO MADE A OFFER INCLUDED COMPETITIVE PRICE CLAUSE BUT NOT OTHER TWO AND DATE OF COMMENCEMENT JUNE 29TH.BETTY AGAIN MADE COUNTER OFFER INCLUDED TWO POINTS.AS THESE ARE COUNTER OFFER IT HAS NO VALIDITY.

HERE OFFER IS NOT COMPLETE AS COUNTER OFFER PREVAILS. THEREFORE ACCEPTANCE HAS NO VALIDITY

ACCEPTANCE:- FEEDCO SENT 1050 PIGS @$33.25 AND BETTY ACCEPTED TO PAY.HERE BETTY ASSUMING THAT TWO CLAUSES CHANGED AS INFORMED BY HIM TO FEEDCO IN TIME.BUT UNTIL ORIGINAL OFFERER NOT ACCEPTED IT WAS AN IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE.AS THIS WAS AN ACCEPTANCE ON COUNTER OFFER IT HAS NO VALIDITY.AGAIN UCC LAW SAYS THAT FOR AMMOUNT MORE THAN $500 IT MUST BE WRITTEN.HENCE IT IS NOT A CONTRACT AS BOTH PARTIES HAVE NOT ACCEPTED.

CONSIDERATION:- PAYING @$33.25/ PIG IS CONSIDERATION.PURCHASING 1050 PIGS/MONTH IS ALSO A CONSIDERATION. PURCHASING FEED FROM FEEDCO ONLY IS CONSIDERATION.WHENEVER MONEY IS INVOLVED FOR EHCHANGE OF ANY THING IT IS CONSIDERATION.IT IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A CONTRACT.

HERE OFFER IS NOT COMPLETE AS COUNTER OFFER PREVAILS. ACCEPTANCE HAS NO VALIDITY AS COUNTER OFFER NOT ACCEPTED BY BOTH PARTIES. AS NOT WRITTEN AND COUNTER OFFER NO CONTRACT

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.