Funny Contract Hypo...

[swifty]

I'm just wondering if you all got his one yet:

Mary posts an ad in her local newspaper advertising her Corvette for sale and the asking price in the ad said 6000.00.  Jane calls up Mary, doesn't even want to look at the car, and offers Mary 6000.00 for the Corvette and informs Mary that she will come later that night with 6000.00 and to pick up the car.  Mary agrees, she is happy she sold the car on the first day, and got she was aking for.

Another person calls about 10 minutes later (Kitty) and offers 7,000.00; this person also does not want to check it out first.  Mary says well I have a buyer already for 6,000.00. Kitty explains "even if the car is not running, and your ad says it does, you are selling this car too cheap, will you accept 9,000.00 for the car, I am just down the street?"  Mary agrees, and sells the Corvette to Kitty.

Jane calls later that night and asks if it is a good time to come by. Mary said "sorry, I already sold it, and got 9000.00"  Jane is outraged, she tells Mary that they had a contract, (verbal) offer, acceptance(meeting of the minds) and consideration. (6000.00).
Jane tells Mary that she is attending law school and knows what a valid contract is, and she broke it.  Mary tells Jane, well I wentt to law school too, and you better go back to study contracts, because I don't have to sell the Corvette to you, and I won't,; it's already been sold.

How to resolve this issue.  I know the answer, so no need to look it up if you were so inclined.  Don't want to waste your time.

This`was the first one I got, wondering if some of you got this same one or similar?? 


       

[Dean Prosser]

Will you give a one sentence answer!  (was the add inviting offers, or is the tender of the money the actual offer?)  And what is so funny about this, I was expecting hobits, gas leaks, airplane dust, poo and apple turnover cakes for funny! 

[baseballjones]

This is the least funny of any hypo's my profs have given.  Your school must be severely lacking a sense of humor if this is what passes for comedy.

[swifty]

I think it's me who is lacking in the humor department. 
I thought it was funny because a law graduate, and a law student both think they know what the law is, and we know one has to be right or wrong.

Answer:  Newspaper advertisements generally do not constitute an offer.  That's it, I'm not going to look up the code section, but I think it basically stems from frequent advertisers like grocery stores who have their ad typo'd to say:

Fresh Ground beef - .09 cents a LB. 

Get's hairy when a old lady wants the store to honor the price, because as she said "but it says right here, that's the only reason I took the bus across town!!!"  I've seen that happen.  The lady would not give up, but when told "okay, but you do know the limit is two pounds?"  "yes, that's all I wanted any ways."   

[tlevans]

Ok, I know I'm not in law school yet, but this cannot be correct.  Although I agree that a newspaper advertisement does not generally constitute an offer but is rather an invitation to bargain, that is not where this hypo ends.  The offer is by Jane to buy the car for $6,000, which Mary happiliy accepts.  Offer, acceptance, consideration.  Done. 

There may be other more subtle reasons that the contract was appropriately revoked, but I just can't buy the "newspaper advertisement does not constitute an offer".

Someone set me straight.

[Dean Prosser]

Ok, I know I'm not in law school yet, but this cannot be correct.  Although I agree that a newspaper advertisement does not generally constitute an offer but is rather an invitation to bargain, that is not where this hypo ends.  The offer is by Jane to buy the car for $6,000, which Mary happiliy accepts.  Offer, acceptance, consideration.  Done. 

There may be other more subtle reasons that the contract was appropriately revoked, but I just can't buy the "newspaper advertisement does not constitute an offer".

Someone set me straight.

You are correct - the offer is not the newspaper advertisement, but an invitation to open up bidding.  In such a situation, the offer would be the tendering of the $6k, which Jane never did.  And Mary would accept by actually taking the money.  There are a number of issues besides this that may be stated. 

[tlevans]

the offer would be the tendering of the $6k, which Jane never did.  And Mary would accept by actually taking the money

Must there be action?  Doesn't a promise by the offeror create an offer, and a subsequent promise by the offeree create acceptance?  Money need not change hands to create the contract.  A contract is an enforceable promise.  Or is this a specific case requiring action rather than a promise to act?  If so, why?

[Dean Prosser]

Of course a bilateral contract is enforceable, in fact, most contracts are bilateral.  In this situation, repeat, in this situation (courts usually interpret this as a unilateral contract), tendering the money would be the offer.  Why?  What if Jane never shows up with the money, would the courts force this sale?  Perhaps on a Promissory Estoppel theory.  However, with these facts and no evidence of detrimental reliance, if Jane is not bound, then why should Mary be.

[Louder Than Bombs]

...

[Louder Than Bombs]

Why?  What if Jane never shows up with the money, would the courts force this sale? 

They may not even force the sale, anyway. Specific performance is a relatively infrequent remedy.