Explain the following statements in your own words (do not copy from the case):
1. To form a legally enforceable contract, there must be (1) identifiable parties capable of contracting; (2) their consent; (3) a lawful object; and (4) a sufficient cause or consideration. The parties’ consent must be free, mutual, and communicated by each to the other. Consent is not determined by the subjective, undisclosed intent of the parties. (Look at the Lucy v. Zehmer case excerpt on pages 232 and 233 as an example of how one court dealt with this issue.)
2. Johnston argues that her offer required Olsen to reply to Townsend. Johnston contends that Olsen rejected the terms of her offer when she replied directly to Johnston. Johnston argues that Olsen instead presented a counteroffer when Olsen replied directly to Johnston. Johnston denies having accepted Olsen’s counteroffer. Thus she contends that the parties formed no enforceable contract
3. “Johnston did not make clear through her words and associated conduct that a reply to Townsend represented the exclusive permissible mode of acceptance. Johnston consequently did not create a condition precedent to Olsen’s acceptance. The parties’ mutual consent was completed therefore when Olsen accepted Johnston’s offer in a reasonable manner. The offer and acceptance satisfied the three other essential elements of a contract. The parties had capacity to contract, the agreement had a lawful object — the sale of the property, and the agreement called for the exchange of sufficient consideration.”
4. Who won the case and why. (This must be a full explanation of the court’s holding.)Explain the following statements in your own words (do not copy from the case):
