Contracts

Petterson v. Pattberg — Study Notes

248 N.Y. 86, 161 N.E. 428 (N.Y. 1928)

Study notes for Petterson v. Pattberg: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

An offeror may revoke a unilateral offer before the offeree completes performance, and a refused tender does not constitute acceptance.
Professor Notes

In Petterson v. Pattberg, the court examined the nature of unilateral contracts and the requirements for acceptance through performance. A critical aspect highlighted is the significance of communication regarding the revocation of offers, especially in unilateral contracts where acceptance is contingent upon performance. The court emphasized that an offeror maintains the right to revoke their offer at any time before the completion of the performance, as no binding contract exists until acceptance is achieved either through completion of the act or proper communication of acceptance.

Furthermore, the ruling illustrates the importance of consideration in contract formation. The rejected tender by Petterson, although a part of the negotiation process, did not result in mutual assent or create an obligation on Pattberg’s part to uphold the offer. Thus, this case serves as a significant reference point in understanding the limitations of unilateral offers and the necessity of definitive acceptance to form enforceable contracts.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1What did Pattberg offer to Petterson?
  2. 2How does the court define acceptance in a unilateral contract?
  3. 3Explain why Petterson's refused tender was not considered acceptance.
  4. 4Discuss the implications of the offeror's right to revoke in unilateral contracts.
  5. 5What role does consideration play in this case?
  6. 6How did the court's decision reflect on the communication of revocation?
  7. 7What broader principles of contract law can be derived from this case?
Mnemonic Device

Pattberg's Performance Prevented Petterson's Promise.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.In Carlill, the court found that the unilateral offer was accepted through performance after the offeror's advertisement created a binding commitment, unlike in Petterson where the offer was revoked before acceptance.
Hyde v. WrenchUnlike in Hyde v. Wrench, where a counter-offer was made, Petterson's scenario involved a unilateral offer that did not lead to a binding agreement due to a refusal to perform.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Allowing offerors to revoke offers prior to acceptance ensures flexibility and protects the offeror from unintended obligations.

Against the Rule

This approach may undermine confidence in contractual negotiations and create barriers to fair dealing as parties may invest resources based on offers that can be retracted without consequence.

Class Discussion Points
  • How do courts balance the rights of offerors and offerees in the context of unilateral contracts?
  • What implications does this case have for businessmen engaging in negotiations?
  • Should the law provide protections for offerees who have begun performance based on an offer?
Exam Angle

Students should be prepared to analyze the formation of unilateral contracts and the implications of revocation before acceptance. Exam questions may involve distinguishing between acceptance by performance and mere intent or offer consideration.

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.