Words: 330
Scott entered into a unilateral contract with Hummer. Scott used the large signboard to offer $1000 to the ballplayer who hit a homerun over the sign. This is a promise for an act. Hummer completed the performance of the act by hitting the homerun over the sign and therefore the unilateral contract between them was formed. Perry and Scott do not have a contract. The offer that he is intending to collect on was never actually offered to him as Otis did not change the sign in the allotted time frame given him by Scott as a part of their contract. Todd was the second ballplayer to hit a monomer over Scoots sign.
The lettering on the sign was never changed to revoke the $1000 offer. Todd in entitled to collect this offer. If the sign had been taken down changed or otherwise biblically advertised revoking the offer he would have no contract with Scott. Scott entered into a bilateral contract with Otis in which Scott promised to advertise using the signboard that Otis provided. As a part of this contract Otis is required to change the lettering on the sign within forty-eight hours after receiving written request from Scott. The contract was breached when Otis failed to change the sign.
As a result of this breach in the contract Scott was then obligated to pay $1000 dollars to Todd. Scott can recover $500 from Otis which is the $1000 Scott had to pay to Todd less the amount he would have had to pay Perry for pitching a no-hit game. There was no breach of contract in this case. When Eddie had agreed to Wally painting his house for $2500 they entered into a unilateral contract where there is a promise for an act. Eddie has the right to revoke the offer at any time before Wally begins painting. The offer made was not fully accepted therefore the agreement is not enforceable. Business law By Lakeside-Dove-Smith