McGurn v. Bell Microproducts, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying Massachusetts law and concluding that “silence in response to an offer may constitute an acceptance if an offeree who takes the benefit of offered services knew or had reason to know of the existence of the offer, and had a reasonable opportunity to reject it.”
• applying Massachusetts law and concluding that “silence in response to an offer may constitute an acceptance if an offeree who takes the benefit of offered services knew or had reason to know of the existence of the offer, and had a reasonable opportunity to reject it.”
• “[A]s a general rule, silence in response to an offer to enter into a contract does not constitute an acceptance of the offer”
• “[S]ilence in response to an offer may constitute an acceptance if an offeree who takes the benefits of offered services knew or had reason to know of the existence of the offer, and had a reasonable opportunity to reject it.”
• “A reply to an offer which purports to accept it but is conditional on the offeror’s assent to terms additional to or different from those offered is not an acceptance but is a counteroffer.” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 59 (1981))
• “legal rule in Massachusetts [is] that silence in response to an offer may constitute an acceptance if an offeree who takes the benefit of offered services knew or had reason to know of the existence of the offer, and had a reasonable opportunity to reject it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).