Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

The mirror-image rule historically has been strictly construed to forbid even minor variations between offer and acceptance. Many modern courts have relaxed the rule, holding that only an acceptance that differs materially from the terms of the original offer prevents contract formation. See, e.g., Raydon Exploration, Inc. v. Ladd, 902 F.2d 1496, 1500 (10th Cir. 1990) (Oklahoma law); Hoyt R. Matise Co. v. Zurn, 754 F.2d 560, 566 (5th Cir. 1985) (Texas law); Northwest Television Club v. Gross Seattle, Inc., 96 Wash. 2d 104, 634 P.2d 837, 840 (Wash. 1981), amended by 96 Wash. 2d 973, 640 P.2d 710 (Wash. 1981).

The corollary to this modern rule is that an immaterial variation in the acceptance does not impede contract formation. For instance, several courts have held that, under this exception, variations implied in the offer do not interfere with the completed contract. Northwest Television Club, 634 P.2d at 841-42; Karas v. Brogan, 55 Ohio St. 2d 128, 378 N.E.2d 470, 471 (Ohio 1978); Northwest Properties Agency, Inc. v. McGhee, 1 Wash. App. 305, 462 P.2d 249, 253 (Wash. Ct. App. 1969).

The Minnesota Supreme Court used the language of the immateriality exception in Markmann ...

Register or login to access full content