Self-study
A contract between two parties is valid only if one party accepts a legitimate offer from the other; an offer is not legitimate if someone in the position of the party to whom it was made would reasonably believe the offer to be made in jest.
Summary
(1) If a party does NOT accept a legitimate offer from another → NO valid contract between the parties
(2) If someone who is made an offer would reasonably believe the offer to be made in jest → NOT legitimate offer
We can infer from (2) and (1) that if someone who is made an offer would reasonably believe the offer to be made in jest, then there can be NO valid contract between the parties based on acceptance of that offer because the offer is not legitimate.
Find or Complete the Application
We’re looking for an application of the principles above. There are many potential correct answers, but here are a few:
Conclusion that there’s NO valid contract. Premise establishes that neither party accepted a legitimate offer from the other.
Conclusion that an offer was NOT legitimate. Premise establishes that anyone to whom an offer was made would reasonably believe the offer was made in jest.
24.
The principle stated above, if ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
a
Joe made a ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ █████ █████ ███ █ █████ █████████
Unreachable conclusion. The first principle does not allow us to prove that a contract IS valid. It can only allow us to prove that a contract is NOT valid (or that one party accepted a legitimate offer from another).
b
Kenta accepted Gus's █████ ██ ███ █ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ██████
Doesn’t give us enough to trigger the first principle. We know that if there wasn’t a legitimate offer, the contract isn’t valid. But we don’t know that there wasn’t a legitimate offer, because we don’t know whether a person in Kenta’s position would reasonably know that Gus’s offer was in jest.
c
Frank's offer to ███ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██████
Neither principle allows us to conclude that someone will accept an offer.
d
Hai's offer to ████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██ ████ █ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ████████ █████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ █ █████ █████████
Unreachable conclusion. The first principle does not allow us to prove that a contract IS valid. It can only allow us to prove that a contract is NOT valid (or that one party accepted a legitimate offer from another).
e
The only offer ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ █ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ███████ █████
(E) establishes that the offer Sal made was not legitimate. Based on the first principle, then, there was no valid contract between Sal and Veronica. (Technically (E) doesn’t address the possibility that Veronica made an offer to Sal, but this is the best answer. No other answer comes close to validly using one of the principles. If we interpret the conclusion in (E) as asserting there’s no valid contract based on Sal’s offer, it’s easier to understand why (E) is correct.)