This paper examines a contract law scenario involving three parties: Peters, who orally offered to sell a used lawn mower to Mason for $125, Bronson, who subsequently purchased the mower for $150, and Mason, who attempted to accept the original offer after learning of the sale. The paper applies fundamental contract law principles — offer, acceptance, and performance — to determine whether Peters's offer was effectively revoked before Mason's acceptance and whether Mason's written acceptance on June 17 had any legal force. The analysis concludes that a valid contract was formed between Peters and Bronson, leaving Mason without a valid claim to the mower.
On June 15, Peters orally offered to sell a used lawn mower to Mason for $125, specifying that Mason had until June 20 to accept. On June 16, Peters received an offer of $150 for the mower from Bronson, Mason's neighbor, and accepted it. On June 17, Mason saw Bronson using the mower and was told it had been sold. Mason immediately wrote to Peters to accept the June 15 offer. Two legal questions arise: Has Peters's offer been revoked? Is Mason's acceptance ineffective?
According to the definition of a legally valid contract, when one person asks another to do something — such as purchasing a lawn mower — the first step toward forming a contract has been taken. Peters completed that step by offering to sell the mower at a specified price. However, the second required step is the other party's acceptance of the offer. In this case, Mason did not initially accept; Bronson did. A contract was therefore formed between Peters and Bronson, not between Peters and Mason.
The final stage of any contract is performance, in which each side carries out its agreed-upon obligation. Peters and Bronson had a valid verbal contract to sell and purchase the lawn mower. Mason, by contrast, merely indicated he would consider the offer during the allotted time — an implicit acknowledgment that the mower might be sold to another party before he responded. The parties could have entered into an option contract, giving Mason an enforceable right to buy within a set period, but no such agreement was made.
The right of retraction is a well-established principle in contract law: an offeror may withdraw an offer at any time before the offeree has accepted it. As one legal source explains, "Be mindful that you can take back or withdraw an offer at any time before the other side has agreed to the deal. This is called retraction. On the other hand, changing your mind after you have signed or agreed precludes retraction. Absent compelling reasons for not holding up to your end of the bargain, you will be a party to a contract" ("Contracts," 2004).
"Right to retract before acceptance; Peters and Bronson's valid contract"
"Contracts." (2004). Retrieved November 23, 2004, from
You’re 69% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.