Will McAfee be able to collect the additional money from the Brewers? Why or why not
The Brewers contracted to purchase Dower House from McAfee. Then, several weeks before the May 7 settlement date for the purchase of the house, the two parties began to negotiate for the sale of certain items of furniture in the house. On April 30, McAfee sent the Brewers a letter containing a list of the furnishings to be purchased at specified prices; a payment schedule, including a request for a $3,000 payment, due on acceptance; and a clause reading, “If the above is satisfactory, please sign and return one copy with the first payment.” On June 3, the Brewers sent a letter to McAfee stating that enclosed was a $3,000 check, that the original contract had been misplaced and could another be furnished, that they planned to move into Dower House on June 12, and that they wished the red desk to be included in the contract. McAfee then sent a letter dated June 8 to the Brewers, listing the items of furniture purchased. The Brewers moved into Dower House in the middle of June. Soon after they moved in, they tried to contact McAfee at his office to tell him that there had been a misunderstanding relating to their purchase of the listed items. They then refused to pay him any more money, and he brought action to recover the balance outstanding. Will McAfee be able to collect the additional money from the Brewers? Why or why not?
A letter to Individual B by Individual M on April 30 does not specify that a particular manner of acquiring is required. Individual B in reply to Individual M enclosed a $3000 cheque. This is the money that Individual B has to pay at the time of the acceptance of the contract but this amount is enclosed by Individual B to Individual M without actually consulting the items listed in the April 30 letter from Individual M. A letter sent on 3rd of Month J by Individual B was specific and expected. Individual B and Individual M are not expressing the acceptance of the red writing desk, which is conditional upon inclusion.
The contract was misplaced by Individual B under the reasonable circumstances. The letter sent by Individual B to Individual M stated an effective acceptance of Individual M's offer. Individual M is not able to take more money from Individual B since Individual B had a misunderstanding regarding the purchase of the items listed in the letter.