Southworth v. Oliver
587 P.2d 994 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Whether a communication constitutes a legal offer is determined by an objective test, considering what a reasonable person in the offeree's position would believe based on the language used and all surrounding circumstances, including prior negotiations.
Facts:
- Defendants Joseph and Arlene Oliver decided to sell a portion of their ranch land in Bear Valley.
- On May 20, 1976, Joseph Oliver visited his neighbor, Plaintiff R.G. Southworth, to ask if he was interested in buying the land. Southworth confirmed he was very interested.
- During the meeting, Oliver showed Southworth a map of the property for sale and stated he would determine a value and price and send that information to Southworth.
- On June 13, 1976, Southworth called Oliver to confirm the sale was still planned. Oliver affirmed it was, and Southworth told Oliver he had the money available and was ready to proceed.
- A few days later, the Olivers mailed a letter dated June 17, 1976, to Southworth and three other neighbors.
- This letter included an enclosure that described approximately 2,933 acres of land, listed a total price of $324,419, and specified payment terms of 29% down with the balance over 5 years at 8% interest.
- Upon receiving the letter, Southworth immediately sent a reply dated June 21, 1976, stating, "Re the land in Bear Valley near Seneca, Oregon, that you have offered to sell; I accept your offer."
- On June 24, 1976, the Olivers sent a final letter to Southworth, claiming their prior communication was not a firm offer but merely informational and a starting point for negotiations.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff R.G. Southworth filed a suit in equity in an Oregon trial court seeking a declaratory judgment and specific performance against Defendants Joseph C. and Arlene G. Oliver.
- The trial court found in favor of Southworth and entered a decree of specific performance.
- The defendants, the Olivers, appealed the trial court's decree to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 letter containing a specific price, description of land, and payment terms, sent to an interested party after prior discussions about a potential sale, constitute a binding offer to sell real property?
Opinions:
Majority - Tongue, J.
Yes, the letter constituted a binding offer to sell the real property. The determination of whether a communication is an offer is based on an objective test of what a reasonable person in the offeree's position would have been led to believe. The court found that the letter did not arrive 'out of the blue' but was the culmination of prior discussions where Oliver initiated contact, identified the specific property, and promised to provide a price. The definiteness of the proposal—including the description of the land, the specific price, and the terms of payment—strengthened the conclusion that it was an offer. The sender's subjective intent not to make an offer is not controlling; rather, the outward manifestation of intent is what matters. Given the entire context of the interactions between Southworth and Oliver, a reasonable person in Southworth's position would have understood the June 17 letter to be an offer that his acceptance would conclude.
Analysis:
This case is a quintessential application of the objective theory of contract formation, emphasizing that the legal effect of a communication depends on its interpretation by a reasonable person, not the secret intent of the sender. It clarifies that a price quotation, which is typically considered an invitation to negotiate, can transform into a binding offer when viewed in the context of prior negotiations and specific promises. The decision instructs that courts must look at the totality of the circumstances—including the parties' relationship, previous conversations, and the definiteness of the terms—to determine if an offer has been made. This precedent is crucial for understanding how preliminary negotiations can give rise to enforceable contractual obligations.
Unlock the full brief for Southworth v. Oliver