Law Case Brief 1

Nurunnahar Kashem

Professor C. Aylman

Law 1101

October 21, 2015

Extra Credit Case Brief

Case 10-5

Citation:

22 West Main Street, Inc. v. Boguszewski

Appellate Division, New York (4th Dept.), 1970

Facts:

This lawsuit is about offer and acceptance of a plot of land. The closing date of the offer was on March 22, 1968, but the plaintiff, 22 West Main Street Inc., sent his acceptance on March 26, 1968. The plaintiff claimed that the contract made with Boguszewski was binding upon his acceptance and needed to be enforced because he accepted the offer. The defendant claims that the “acceptance” on March 26 was not an acceptance of the original offer, but rather a counteroffer made by the plaintiff, which was not accepted by the defendant, hence not creating a contract. The lower court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to compel specific performance of a real estate contract.

Issue:

Is the contract for the land enforceable even if the acceptance was made after the closing date or after a reasonable amount of time?

Decision:

No, the contract is not enforceable if the acceptance was made after the closing date specified by the offeror. The higher court decided that the order should be modified to grant summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint since there never was a contract.

Reason:

The biggest issue in this case was that the plaintiff accepted the offer he received for the land four days after the closing date or one month and five days after the tender of the offer. Although the offer made on February 21 did not specify a time limit on the duration of it, the idea is that it would be open for a reasonable time. The plaintiff, however, did not accept the offer in a reasonable amount of time or before the closing date. A similar case, Hamilton v. Patrick, set a precedent, claiming “any subsequent acceptance [after the closing date or reasonable time] would imply a contract different from the terms proposed.” Indeed, after the plaintiff “accepted” the offer, what he actually proposed was a counteroffer that was not accepted by the defendant. Therefore, no contract need be enforced between the two parties.