Southworth v.

Oliver

Case: Southworth v. Oliver

Court: Supreme Court of Oregon, 1978.
Page: 284 Or. 361, 587 P.2d 994.

Facts: Defendant claims that a certain “writing” mailed by them to the plaintiff was
not and offer to send the land. Oliver (D) stopped Southworth (P) and said he was
interseetd in selling his ranch and whether he was interested in buyhing is ranch.
Southworth said he was interested in the land and Holliday (neighbor) was
interested in the permits. Holliday was not interested in the land, but was
interested in trading some other land from what the plaintiff was buying. Plaintiff
received a letter from the defendant on June 17, 1976 stating the land, its
impromvents ments, the terms, and location. Ther was a dispute with Holliday and
Southworth about the land in question, and Oliver did not want to get involved. He
sent a letter to the plaintiff saying that his letter was not that an offer to sell, just a
starting point of negotiation, and that there was no legal description of land. The
letter said they were willing to further negotiotae but what they had in writing was
not enforceable. Plaintiff sued and was granted specific performance.

Procedural Context: Appeal from the trial courts judgment of specific performance
in favor of the defendant.

Issue: Whethere a writing, which is sent to multiple and does not contain the word
“offer” can be construed to be an offer?

Holding: Yes

Rule: A writing does not have to include the words “offer” for it to be a binding offer.
If the offer is definite, clear, and explicit , and lacks negotation, it is an offer.

If a reasonable person believes that the defencant, in their writing, were making an
offer.

Rationale: (Tongue) The defendant claims that it also was not an offer because the
plaintiff knew or should have reasonably known that it was not intended to be an
offer. The defendant claims there was no use of the word offer and the plaintiff
knew the information was going to other parties. Price quotation standing alone is
not an offer, there may be circumstances it may constitute an offer, if accepted will
result in a binding contract. An offer can be made to more than one person. Thus,
the fact that a price quotation is sent to more than one person does notr of itself,
rquire a holiding that such a price quotation is not an offer. Court believes this
writing is an offer, because it would leave a reasonable person believes that the
defencant, in their writing, were making an offer. The evidence helps show this as
the defendant sought out the plaintiff. The plaintiff called the defendant to confirm
the sale and the defendant said he had still had planned to sell. The letter also was
definite as to the price, the termrs, and the date, which would a reasonable person to
believe an offer was made. Further strengethed that it was addressed to a certain
group of people, him and his neighbor, and not an offer to the world. It may be
propert to consider subjective intent but generally courts follow an objective,
reasonable person test.

Conclusion: Judgment for the Plaintiff affirmed.