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
 
Line 4: Line 4:
|date=September 12, 1968
|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.