Story Case

Howard Engle drew up the following instrument: "In ten days I shall convey to my son-in-law, John Mitchner ten acres of land on the bank of Walnut Creek".

(Signed) Howard Engle. (Seal)

Howard Engle gave this document to John, telling him he desired to make this gift. John said that he would be glad to have the land and thanked Engle.

Later Engle changed his mind and refused to convey the land. Mitchner sued him and he defended on the ground that Mitchner gave no consideration for the promise to convey, and also on the ground that there had been no offer and acceptance.

Which party should win?

Ruling Court Case. O'Brien Vs. Boland, Volume 116 Massachusetts Reports, Page 481; Volume 44 North Eastern Reporter, Page 602

Boland was in need of money. He was making determined attempts to sell land which he owned. Several times he had offered it to O'Brien at various prices, but none of the offers were accepted. Although the property was reasonably worth $29,000, he made out a written agreement, in which he offered to sell the land to O'Brien for the sum of $26,000, provided he accepted the offer within ten days. This agreement was not supported by any consideration, but it was signed, sealed, and delivered to O'Brien by Boland. Before the ten days had expired, Boland notified O'Brien that he had withdrawn his offer to sell at the price above mentioned. After this notice by Boland, and before the ten days had passed, O'Brien notified him of his intention to accept the offer, and that he was ready and willing to pay the purchase price and receive a conveyance therefor. But Boland refused to perform. Thereupon, O'Brien brought this bill asking that Boland be compelled to convey the land in question.

It was contended by Boland, by way of defense, that his offer to sell was not binding upon him, because it was not accepted until he had withdrawn it.

Decision

As a general rule, an offer of a promise to do something is not binding upon the person making the offer, unless the offer is accepted by some act or promise in return therefor, which constitutes the consideration to support the agreement. But where an offer of a promise is made in writing, is sealed and delivered, it is binding without any act or promise in return from the offeree. It cannot be revoked or withdrawn and is binding upon the offerer if accented according to its terms.

Therefore, judgment was given for O'Brien in this action.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

In each of the types of offers heretofore discussed, we have seen that the offer contemplated some act or promise on the part of the offeree, the person to who the offer was made. This promise, or this act, in return, constitutes the consideration which makes the agreement binding. A simple offer made by a person, in return for which no act or promise is made by way of acceptance, is not binding upon the person who makes the offer. But if he reduces his offer to writing, signs, seals, and delivers it to the offeree, it becomes binding upon him, and he cannot revoke it, except in the manner agreed upon. The presence of the seal, as has been noted, dispenses with the necessity of any consideration.

In the Story Case,Engel would lose. A contract under seal requires no consideration to make it binding.