This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org

McGlone v. Lacey: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
|court=U.S.D.C., District of South Dakota
|court=U.S.D.C., District of South Dakota
|citation=288 F.Supp. 662 (1968)
|citation=288 F.Supp. 662 (1968)
|date=1968/09/12
|date=September 12, 1968
|subject=Contracts
|subject=Contracts
}}
|appealed_from=
{{Court opinion part
|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part
|opinion_type=majority
|opinion_type=majority
|opinion_order=1
|written_by=Nichol
|written_by=Nichol
|joined_by=
}}
}}
}}
'''Facts''': Plaintiff seeking an attorney makes offer, but the attorney did not respond. The statute of limitations ran.
'''Facts''': Plaintiff seeking an attorney makes offer, but the attorney did not respond. The statute of limitations ran.

Latest revision as of 05:18, September 9, 2020

McGlone v. Lacey
Court U.S.D.C., District of South Dakota
Citation 288 F.Supp. 662 (1968)
Date decided September 12, 1968
Case Opinions
majority written by Nichol

Facts: Plaintiff seeking an attorney makes offer, but the attorney did not respond. The statute of limitations ran.

Issue: Did Defendant lawyer owe any liability to Plaintiff (was a contract formed)?

Holding: No

Rule:

  • Acceptance must be unequivocal in order to create contract.
  • Silence will not of itself constitute acceptance.