The suit was subject to mandatory arbitration. The parties proceeded
to arbitration on April 28, 2006. On May 5, the arbitrator awarded Mikaila
$25,069.47. On May 9, the GAL wrote to the Kidds and purported to
accept their last offer of $32,843, made the year before.
The Kidds contend that the trial court did not consider that implicit in
its settlement offer was the GAL’s forbearance in proceeding with the
arbitration to its conclusion. The GAL argues that the offer was not
conditioned upon the arbitration proceeding in any manner. And the offer
provided no time limit for its acceptance. The GAL further claims that the
An offer to form a contract is open only for a reasonable time, unless
the offer specifically states how long it is open for acceptance.
[Citations.] “[I]n the absence of an acceptance of an offer … within a
reasonable time (where no time limit is specified), there is no contract.”
[Citation.]
How much time is reasonable is usually a question of fact. [Citation.]
But we can decide the limits of a reasonable time if the facts are
undisputed. [Citation.] And here the essential facts are not disputed.
A reasonable time “is the time that a reasonable person in the exact
position of the offeree would believe to be satisfactory to the offeror.”
[Citation.] “The purpose of the offeror, to be attained by the making and
performance of the contract, will affect the time allowed for acceptance,
Implicit in an offer (and an acceptance) to settle a personal injury suit
is the party’s intent to avoid a less favorable result at the hands of a jury,
a judge or, in this case, an arbitrator. The defendant runs the risk that the