Benya v. Stevens and Thompson Paper Co.
468 A.2d 929, 143 Vt. 521, 1983 Vt. LEXIS 563 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An acceptance of an offer is only valid if it substantially complies with the terms of the offer. An acceptance that modifies or adds new material terms constitutes a counteroffer, not a valid acceptance, and does not form a binding contract unless accepted by the original offeror.
Facts:
- In September 1979, defendant Stevens and Thompson Paper Co. (S & T) listed over 5,000 acres of timber land for sale.
- On September 24, 1979, the plaintiff, through his agent Landvest, Inc., executed and sent S & T a purchase and sales agreement to buy the land.
- The plaintiff's offer included a $5,000 deposit, a 9% interest rate on a seller-held mortgage with annual payments, and a warranty deed.
- S & T's vice-president made several changes to the agreement, including increasing the deposit to $10,000, raising the interest rate to 10%, changing payments to quarterly, and changing the deed type to a special warranty deed.
- After making these modifications, the S & T vice-president initialed the changes and signed the document, returning it to the plaintiff's agent.
- The plaintiff disagreed with S & T's changes and, after discussion, had his agent prepare a new, third version of the agreement on October 19, 1979.
- This third version reverted the deposit to $5,000 and postponed the first mortgage payment for a year.
- On November 7, 1979, S & T sold the property to a different buyer without ever signing the plaintiff's October 19th proposal.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant, Stevens & Thompson Paper Co., in a Vermont trial court for breach of contract.
- Following a trial by court (a bench trial), the court found in favor of the plaintiff.
- The trial court awarded the plaintiff $300,000 in actual damages and $50,000 in punitive damages plus interest.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's response to a purchase and sales agreement that alters material terms such as the deposit amount, interest rate, payment schedule, and deed type constitute a valid acceptance creating a binding contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Billings, C.J.
No. A response to an offer that materially alters its terms is not an acceptance but a counteroffer, which must be accepted by the original offeror to form a contract. The defendant's alterations to the plaintiff's original offer were significant, not minor. Changes to the deposit amount, interest rate, payment frequency, and type of deed were material modifications. This transformed the defendant's response into a counteroffer, which the plaintiff never accepted. Instead, the plaintiff responded with his own new proposal, which was a counter-counteroffer. Because the defendant never signed or otherwise accepted the plaintiff's final proposal, the parties never reached a meeting of the minds on all essential details, and no enforceable contract was ever formed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law 'mirror image' rule in contract formation, which requires an acceptance to be an unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer. The court clarifies that changes to essential financial and legal terms, such as financing details and the type of deed, are considered material alterations that create a counteroffer, thereby terminating the original offer. The case serves as a crucial precedent in real estate law, illustrating that a series of negotiations with modified documents does not create a binding contract until one party accepts the other's final proposal without any changes. It underscores the importance for parties to ensure a final, clean, and mutually signed agreement exists before considering a deal to be legally enforceable.
