California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

309. Contract Formation—Acceptance

Download PDF
309.Contract Formation—Acceptance
Both an offer and an acceptance are required to create a contract.
[Name of defendant] contends that a contract was not created because
the offer was never accepted. To overcome this contention, [name of
plaintiff] must prove both of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] agreed to be bound by the terms of the
offer. [If [name of defendant] agreed to be bound only on certain
conditions, or if [he/she/it] introduced a new term into the
bargain, then there was no acceptance]; and
2. That [name of defendant] communicated [his/her/its] agreement to
[name of plaintiff].
If [name of plaintiff] did not prove both of the above, then a contract
was not created.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
Do not give this instruction unless the defendant has testified or offered other
evidence in support of his or her contention.
This instruction assumes that the defendant is claiming to have not accepted
plaintiff’s offer. Change the identities of the parties in the indented paragraphs if,
under the facts of the case, the roles of the parties are switched (e.g., if defendant
was the alleged offeror).
Sources and Authority
• Acceptance. Civil Code section 1585.
“[T]erms proposed in an offer must be met exactly, precisely and unequivocally
for its acceptance to result in the formation of a binding contract; and a
qualified acceptance amounts to a new proposal or counteroffer putting an end
to the original offer.” (Panagotacos v. Bank of America (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th
851, 855–856 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 595].)
• “[I]t is not necessarily true that any communication other than an unequivocal
acceptance is a rejection. Thus, an acceptance is not invalidated by the fact that
it is ‘grumbling,’ or that the offeree makes some simultaneous ‘request.’
Nevertheless, it must appear that the ‘grumble’ does not go so far as to make it
doubtful that the expression is really one of assent. Similarly, the ‘request’ must
not add additional or different terms from those offered. Otherwise, the
‘acceptance’ becomes a counteroffer.” (Guzman v. Visalia Community Bank
(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 581].)
• “The interpretation of the purported acceptance or rejection of an offer is a
99
0025
question of fact. Further, based on the general rule that manifested mutual
assent rather than actual mental assent is the essential element in the formation
of contracts, the test of the true meaning of an acceptance or rejection is not
what the party making it thought it meant or intended it to mean. Rather, the
test is what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have
thought it meant.” (Guzman, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1376–1377.)
• “Acceptance of an offer, which may be manifested by conduct as well as by
words, must be expressed or communicated by the offeree to the offeror.”
(Russell v. Union Oil Co. (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 110, 114 [86 Cal.Rptr. 424].)
• “The Restatement Second of Contracts, section 60 provides, ‘If an offer
prescribes the place, time or manner of acceptance its terms in this respect must
be complied with in order to create a contract. If an offer merely suggests a
permitted place, time or manner of acceptance, another method of acceptance is
not precluded.’ Comment a to Restatement 2d, section 60 provides, ‘a.
Interpretation of offer. If the offeror prescribes the only way in which his offer
may be accepted, an acceptance in any other way is a counter-offer. But
frequently in regard to the details of methods of acceptance, the offeror’s
language, if fairly interpreted, amounts merely to a statement of a satisfactory
method of acceptance, without positive requirement that this method shall be
followed.’ [¶] Similarly, Restatement 2d, section 30 provides in relevant part,
‘Unless otherwise indicated by the language or the circumstances, an offer
invites acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the
circumstances.’ Comment b to Restatement 2d section 30 states: ‘Invited form.
Insistence on a particular form of acceptance is unusual. Offers often make no
express reference to the form of acceptance; sometimes ambiguous language is
used. Language referring to a particular mode of acceptance is often intended
and understood as suggestion rather than limitation; the suggested mode is then
authorized, but other modes are not precluded. In other cases language which in
terms refers to the mode of acceptance is intended and understood as referring
to some more important aspect of the transaction, such as the time limit for
acceptance.’ ” (Pacific Corporate Group Holdings, LLC v. Keck (2014) 232
Cal.App.4th 294, 311–312 [181 Cal.Rptr.3d 399], original italics, footnote
omitted.)
Secondary Sources
1 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts, §§ 180–192
13 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 140, Contracts, § 140.22
(Matthew Bender)
5 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 50, Contracts, § 50.352 (Matthew Bender)
27 California Legal Forms, Ch. 75, Formation of Contracts and Standard
Contractual Provisions, § 75.214 (Matthew Bender)
1 Matthew Bender Practice Guide: California Contract Litigation, Ch. 13, Attacking
or Defending Existence of Contract—Absence of Essential Element, 13.25–13.31
CACI No. 309 CONTRACTS
100
0026