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 law governing contract formation is distinct from that of contract performance.  The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that distinction in stating that '[b]ecause of strict rules governing offer and acceptance, which require that an acceptance be in terms of the offer, we are reluctant to follow by analogy rules laid down with respect to contracts already formed. In passing upon questions of offer and acceptance, courts may wisely require greater exactitude than when they are trying to salvage an existing contract.' Henry Simons Lumber Co. v. Simons, 232 Minn. 187, 193-94, 44 N.W.2d 726, 730 (1950).

States differ in whether they recognize waiver of a term for acceptance. Compare Sabo v. Fasano, 154 Cal. App. 3d 502, 201 Cal. Rptr. 270, 271 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (recognizing waiver of defect in acceptance); Kansas City v. Indus. Gas Co., 138 Kan. 755, 28 P.2d 968, 970 (Kan. 1934) (same); Beirne v. Alaska State Hous. Auth., 454 P.2d 262, 264-65 (Alaska 1969) (same); with 22 West Main St., Inc. v. Boguszewski, 34 A.D.2d 358, 311 N.Y.S.2d 565, 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970) (viewing late acceptance as counteroffer); Morrison v. Rayen Inv., Inc., ...

Register or login to access full content