facts
The case shows how enforceability of purchases applies when entering into a contract with a seller. Paul Ehlen entered into an in-purchase agreement, where he agrees to purchase a real-estate with the Melvin’s. The original purchase price is stated at $85,000, and it will be closed in 6 days. The Melvin’s modify the contract and sent it back to Paul for signing. He notices the modification, refuses to sign the new contract, and sues Melvin’s. The court rules that the Melvin’s made a counteroffer to Paul, and therefore there is no contract between the two parties.
Ehlen did accept the terms of the new offer, and therefore he did not sign the contract. Ehlen did not act ethically because after receiving the contract to sign, he did not return the contract until the day of expiration. After noticing that the terms of the offer had changed, he should have returned the contract and complained about the contract’s new terms. He had already received an initial offer, which was already bound by offer and acceptance purchase agreement, but he went silent on receiving the edited contract. Therefore, Ehlen does not act ethically in trying to enforce the purported contract.
Consequence if silence is taken as acceptance
Upon receiving the new contract, Ehlen goes silent. If an agreement is held valid upon the silence of the offeree, then the contract might have some consequences in the future. Acceptance by silence will result in conflict in the future. If the contract is delayed in rejection, that will legally enforce the contract to the offeree. Therefore if silence is taken as acceptance, many legal problems will arise between the parties.