Broderick owns a beautiful automobile, a 1971 Nissan Newport. Ophelia has offered to buy the car from Broderick on multiple occasions for $20,000, but Broderick has always declined the offer. One night, Ophelia visited the tavern where she knew Broderick usually spent his evenings relaxing. having dinner, and drinking one beer. Upon her arrival, Ophelia ordered a beer for herself and a milkshake for Broderick. Ophelia and Broderick proceeded to make jokes and share a few laughs, and again she offered to buy the car from Broderick. This time, Broderick laughed and agreed, writing out and signing a written agreement to sell the car to Ophelia for $20,000 on several sheets of paper brought to them by an employee of the tavern. Ophelia observed what Broderick was doing, and she smiled and nodded numerous times as Broderick completed writing out the terms and then handed the sheets of paper to Ophelia. Then, Ophelia signed on the signature line for her that Broderick had placed on the form right below where Broderick placed his signature. The next morning. Ophelia showed up at Broderick's house with her check to Broderick for $20,000, but Broderick insisted that the contract was invalid. Is Broderick right? Why or why not? O Broderick is probably right the contract must be invalid. Ophelia has made the offer to Broderick on multiple prior occasions, and she would have needed to offer new consideration for the contract. Since past consideration is not valid consideration, there is no contract. O Broderick is probably right the contract appears to be invalid. A court would likely void the contract based on unconscionability since Ophelia, knowing that Broderick had been drinking one beer, sought out Broderick in the tavern with the purpose of forming a contract. O Broderick is probably right the contract appears to be invalid. It's likely that Broderick thought that the offer to buy the car was made in jest since he and Ophelia had been making jokes prior to the offer, and therefore neither Broderick nor Ophelia could have had the requisite intent. O Broderick is probably wrong - the contract appears to be valid. A contract is judged according to its outward manifestation. The words and actions of each party (Broderick and Ophelia) would likely be interpreted in favor of the formation of a legally binding contract. O Broderick is probably wrong - the contract appears to be valid. Ophelia demonstrated a clear intent to make a contract as demonstrated by the fact that she has asked on several occasions to buy the car. One party's intent to be bound is, by itself, sufficient to form a contract.

Broderick owns a beautiful automobile, a 1971 Nissan Newport. Ophelia has offered to buy the car from Broderick on multiple occasions for $20,000, but Broderick has always declined the offer. One night, Ophelia visited the tavern where she knew Broderick usually spent his evenings relaxing. having dinner, and drinking one beer. Upon her arrival, Ophelia ordered a beer for herself and a milkshake for Broderick. Ophelia and Broderick proceeded to make jokes and share a few laughs, and again she offered to buy the car from Broderick. This time, Broderick laughed and agreed, writing out and signing a written agreement to sell the car to Ophelia for $20,000 on several sheets of paper brought to them by an employee of the tavern. Ophelia observed what Broderick was doing, and she smiled and nodded numerous times as Broderick completed writing out the terms and then handed the sheets of paper to Ophelia. Then, Ophelia signed on the signature line for her that Broderick had placed on the form right below where Broderick placed his signature. The next morning. Ophelia showed up at Broderick's house with her check to Broderick for $20,000, but Broderick insisted that the contract was invalid. Is Broderick right? Why or why not? O Broderick is probably right the contract must be invalid. Ophelia has made the offer to Broderick on multiple prior occasions, and she would have needed to offer new consideration for the contract. Since past consideration is not valid consideration, there is no contract. O Broderick is probably right the contract appears to be invalid. A court would likely void the contract based on unconscionability since Ophelia, knowing that Broderick had been drinking one beer, sought out Broderick in the tavern with the purpose of forming a contract. O Broderick is probably right the contract appears to be invalid. It's likely that Broderick thought that the offer to buy the car was made in jest since he and Ophelia had been making jokes prior to the offer, and therefore neither Broderick nor Ophelia could have had the requisite intent. O Broderick is probably wrong - the contract appears to be valid. A contract is judged according to its outward manifestation. The words and actions of each party (Broderick and Ophelia) would likely be interpreted in favor of the formation of a legally binding contract. O Broderick is probably wrong - the contract appears to be valid. Ophelia demonstrated a clear intent to make a contract as demonstrated by the fact that she has asked on several occasions to buy the car. One party's intent to be bound is, by itself, sufficient to form a contract.