I. What are the Requirements for an Offer?
A. Contractual intention
1. Present intent to contract, not to open negotiations
CASE BRIEF: Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank
673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012)
FACTS: Wigod brought an action against Wells Fargo Bank alleging, among other theories,
breach of common-law contract law. The U.S. Treasury implemented the federal Home
Affordable Mortgage Program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure in the nation’s housing
market in 2008. In 2009, the bank issued Wigod a four-month “trial” loan modification under a
Trial Period Plan (TPP). After the trial period, if the borrower complied with all of the terms of the
TPP Agreement, including making all required payments and providing all required
documentation, and if the borrower’s representations remained true and correct, Wells Fargo
had to offer a permanent mortgage modification. Wigod alleged that she complied with these
requirements and that Wells Fargo refused to grant a permanent modification. Wells Fargo
contended that the TPP contained no valid offer.
ISSUE: Did the TPP contain a valid offer?
REASONING: A person can prevent his submission from being treated as an offer by using suitable language
conditioning the formation of a contract on some further step. It is when the promisor conditions
a promise on his own future action or approval that there is no binding offer. Here, the TTP
spelled out two conditions precedent to Wells Fargo’s obligation to offer a permanent
modification. A reasonable person in Wigod’s position would read the TPP as a default offer that
she could accept so long as she satisfied the two conditions.
B. Definiteness
1. Discuss certainty vs. vagueness – e.g., an agreement to sell “a large amount of corn” is too vague to
be enforced
CASE BRIEF:Frank Novak & Sons, Inc. v. A-Team, LLC, dba ServiceMaster
6 N.E. 3rd 1242 (Ohio App. 2014)
FACTS: ServiceMaster as the general contractor hired to restore the Cleveland Brown Stadium
in time for the Browns’ first pre-season football game hired subcontractor Novak to perform
restoration and construction work. Novak sued for $37,158.82 for worked performed on the
August 2, 2007 severe rainstorm project, referred to as Loss 2. ServiceMaster contended that
Novak was bound by a written but unsigned subcontractor agreement, and that Novak’s alleged
oral contract was lacking any definite terms to be enforceable. From a judgment for Novak,
SeviceMaster appealed.
ISSUE: Was there sufficient evidence of definite terms to allow the court to enforce the oral contract?
REASONING: The record contained sufficient evidence of definite terms to enforce the oral contract. Novak
V.P. Pinchot credibly testified that Novak’s “time and materials” billing on the final invoice
contained the hours worked at the published union rate plus the cost of materials, plus 10
percent, which method of pricing is widely understood in the construction industry.