Assignment task:
In response to your briefs on the Owens vs. Tunison case. The Issue was whether or not the defendant made a written offer in response to his correspondence of November 12. The defendant responded, "Would not be possible to sell unless I was to receive $16,000 cash"
When analyzing a statement isolate the exact language and look for the legal significance of that statement.
The court held that there was "no meeting of the minds" between the parties. An offer requires there be an outward manifestation of present contractual intent with definite and certain terms *(QTIPS) communicated to the offeree. The intent to make offer is reflected by the language and surrounding circumstances of the statement. Definiteness refers to a clear description of the subject matter of the proposed bargain, quantity, price, identity of parties, and time. If the first statement is not an offer (i.e. defendant's statement of November 12th) then the plaintiff's response (December 5th) cannot be effective acceptance.
The case book on p. 132 provides a useful technique to use when analyzing the language used by the parties. They instruct to "redraft it twice, staying as faithful as possible to the original word as possible, so that it would clearly require a decision, first for one party and then for the other".
A mere inquiry or invitation to the other party to make an offer does not constitute an offer. Rather that is the start of preliminary negotiations.
What changes made Tunison have made to his writing such that it would have been an offer for sale?