Question

On June 1 Glenda receives a call from an acquaintance, John, offering to sell her a small one-story building for $50,000 that she needs for her startup computer consulting business. She needs to respond by June 10. Glenda mulls over the offer and thinks the price is too high so she calls John on June 7 and says that she will buy the building for $42,000. John says he doesn’t know and will think about it. John decides not to get back to Glenda and calls Clara offering to sell the building to her for $52,000 on June 8. Clara accepts his offer on June 9. Glenda on not hearing from John drops by the property and finds Clara who tells her she has bought the property. Glenda, irate, calls John on June 10 and accepts his offer for $50,000. John refuses that acceptance. Glenda sues John demanding specific performance of the agreement on the building. Who will prevail? Why? Address all issues that are present. What additional facts, if any, do you need to know?

Please help me with the second question "What additional facts, if any, do you need to know"

Answer 1

John will prevail, Glenda will not. This is a void agreement, not enforceable in a court of law.

There was no formation of a contract between John and Glenda. John had made an offer to Glenda on June 1, and Glenda had made a counter offer, to which John did not commit.

For an offer to culminate into an enforceable contract, it should be accepted absolutely and unconditionally. John's offer was not accepted absolutely by Glenda. And Glenda's counter offer was not accepted by John. Hence, there being no contract in the first place, the question of its breach does not arise. And if there is no breach of contract, the question of the court awarding specific performance does not arise. This was not even a valid agreement. Is it a void agreement.

Additional facts: whether John had committed a timeline for getting back to Glenda about accepting the counter offer from her.