Issa Hawatmeh

hawatmeh@uchastings.edu
Due: February 1, 2021 9:00 AM

Hand – Contracts – SP21

Practice Exercise A

Part I: See AdaptiBar

Part II:

Contract Formation and Advertisements as Offers

The formation of a contract requires a bargain where there is a manifestation of

mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration. (R2d § 17). An offer is the

manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person

in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it. (R2d § 24).

Generally, under the R2d § 26, advertisements constitute invitations to receive

offers rather than actual offers. This is so because a typical advertisement is too general

to be an offer, particularly because it contains no notice of to whom it is directed and no

limitation on the number of people who may accept by attempting to purchase the

advertised item. However, an advertisement that is more detailed may be an offer,

especially when there are additional facts such that the reasonable consumer would

understand than the advertiser is manifesting willingness to enter into a bargain that the

consumer can accept. Comment b to Restatement (Second) § 26 states that “[T]o make

an offer by an advertisement . . . there must ordinarily be some language of commitment

or some invitation to take action without further communication.” Essentially, the common

test for determining whether an advertisement is in fact an offer is whether the statement

is clear, definite, explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation.

 Issa Hawatmeh
hawatmeh@uchastings.edu
Due: February 1, 2021 9:00 AM

Here, the inquiry is whether there is a valid, enforceable contract with Fox for the

sale of the pre-owned 2018 Sulex MJX for $23,995?

No Risk of Multiple Acceptances

McFly Sulex did not expose themselves to the risk of multiple acceptances

because of the condition stated in their advertisement that “[a]dvertised vehicles will be

sold to the first interested buyer who appears in person at the dealership with payment.”

This proposed transaction eliminates the risk of multiple acceptances because only one

person can be the first to present their payment at the dealership and secure the

transaction. Here, since the pre-owned 2018 Sulex MJX was still on the lot, it is safe to

assume that Fox was the first interested buyer to appear at the dealership with the full

advertised price in hand to secure the vehicle.

Language of Commitment

Moreover, McFly Sulex’s communication met the commitment requirement

because some performance, the sale of a vehicle, was promised in positive terms in return

for something requested, the recipient’s physical presence at the dealership with

complete payment (which also acts as consideration). McFly Sulex promised to sell their

vehicle at the advertised “no haggle” price of $23,995 in return for the physical presence

of Fox, who had a cashier’s check for the full advertised price in hand. Furthermore, McFly

Sulex’s communication left nothing for negotiation, as can be inferred by the terms of their

communication. They advertised a “no haggle’ guarantee” for their advertised prices and

indicated that the terms and conditions of any potential sale are “on [their] website and
 Issa Hawatmeh
hawatmeh@uchastings.edu
Due: February 1, 2021 9:00 AM

are non-negotiable.” This leaves nothing for a prospective, reasonable buyer to do or

negotiate other than appear in person at the dealership with payment to express their

assent to the invited bargain and conclude the bargain.

No Intention Not to Be Bound

Subsequently, nothing in McFly Sulex’s communication suggests an explicit

intention not to be bound. On the contrary, their communication could be interpreted as

an intention to be bound because of their alleged “no haggle’ guarantee” which the

reasonable consumer, such as Fox, would understand as McFly Sulex’s manifested

willingness to enter into a bargain (manifestation of mutual assent to enter into a bargain).

This vocabulary, in addition to vocabulary such as that “all advertised prices are final,”

suggests to the reasonable consumer that they’ll know exactly what they are going to pay

the moment they appear at the dealership and eliminate any surprises for consumers

when it comes time to pay.

More Specific and Detailed Than a Normal Offer

The language used in McFly Sulex’s advertisement is more specific than an

advertisement that would not constitute an offer. The subject matter are specific as they

include details such as pricing, VIN, and color; additionally, there is more specificity

regarding McFly Sulex’s no haggle policies, seller terms, and the manner of acceptance

that they expect from reasonable consumers such as Fox. This added specificity is more

detailed than the ordinary offer and, ultimately, constituted an offer that Emmett Fox could

accept by being the first person at the dealership with $23,995 in hand to pay for the
 Issa Hawatmeh
hawatmeh@uchastings.edu
Due: February 1, 2021 9:00 AM

vehicle he wanted. Finally, this specificity both intended to and was reasonably

foreseeable to induce substantial reliance on the part of the recipients. The advertisement

created a sense trust and confidence in the dealerships’ advertised claims and compelled

interested buyer’s to prepare the funds necessary for the given vehicle they want, to act

quickly to ensure being the first person interested, and requires be physically present at

the dealership. These conditions cause the interested buyer to rely substantially on the

trustworthiness of the advertisement and dependability of McFly Sulex.

The advertisement by McFly Sulex is an offer because the terms of the

advertisement are clear, definite, explicit, and leave nothing open for negotiation on the

part of the consumer. Additionally, the advertisements manifest McFly Sulex’s willingness

to enter into a bargain for the specified prices shown in their advertisement, the bargain

is thus a valid, enforceable contract.