Paralegal

Category - Judgement

On June 1, Art Dealer mailed an offer to Collector. The offer, which was received on June 3, offered to sell a painting to Collector. On the same day he received the offer, Collector mailed an acceptance of the offer to Art Dealer. On June 5, Collector called Art Dealer’s office and left a message on Art Dealer’s voicemail. The message indicated that Collector had mailed an acceptance, but was calling to revoke it. Art Dealer was out of town that day and was unable to check her voicemail. On June 6, Art Dealer received the acceptance and immediately mailed a letter to Collector confirming the sale. Under the Mailbox Rule, an acceptance is effective when mailed. However, an exception exists if a revocation is actually received by the offerer before the acceptance is received. On the facts above, was Collector’s acceptance effectively revoked?
  1. Yes, because Collector called Art Dealer on June 5 and left a message that he was revoking his acceptance.
  2. Yes, because Art Dealer was negligent in not checking her voicemail on June 5, and but for that negligence she would have known of the revocation.
  3. No, because Art Dealer did not receive the revocation before she received the acceptance on June 6.
  4. No, because an acceptance cannot be revoked.
Explanation
Answer: C - No, because Art Dealer did not receive the revocation before he received the acceptance on June 6. Answer C is correct because the exception to the Mailbox Rule applies only if the revocation is received before the acceptance. Answer A is not correct because receipt of the revocation requires that the offerer have actual knowledge of the revocation. Answer B is not correct because the Mailbox Rule does not give rise to any duty or obligation under negligence law. Answer D is not correct because it is an incorrect statement.
Was this helpful? Upvote!
Login to contribute your own answer or details

Top questions

Related questions

Most popular on PracticeQuiz