Acceptance for value

Here's another question: Why do we say "accepted for value" when a $ amount is present on the offer, i.e. traffic ticket? Why not just say "accepted"?



What is the significance of "for value" besides when accepting an offer with no $ amount expressed?

Originally Posted by seizeliberty

Also, I have read (I'm trying like hell to remember where) that, stating in an acceptance, terms that were otherwise only implied in the offer does not constitute a conditional acceptance nor creates a counter-offer. In this situation, it is implied that the offeror has title and this is simply not the case. Hence, the request for the IRS forms.



My acceptance is unconditional.

I found where I saw this reference:



RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS

11

§59. PURPORTED ACCEPTANCE WHICH ADDS QUALIFICATIONS

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 counter-offer.

Comments:

a. Qualified acceptance. A qualified or conditional acceptance proposes an exchange different

from that proposed by the original offeror. Such a proposal is a counter-offer and ordinarily

terminates the power of acceptance of the original offeree. See §39....But a definite and seasonable

expression of acceptance is operative despite the statement of additional or different terms if the

acceptance is not made to depend on assent to the additional or different terms. See §61; Uniform

Commercial Code §2-207(1). The additional or different terms are then to be construed as proposals

for modification of the contract. See Uniform Commercial Code §2-207(2). Such proposals may

sometimes be accepted by the silence of the original offeror. See §69.

b. Statement of conditions implied in offer. To accept, the offeree must assent unconditionally

to the offer as made, but the fact that the offeree makes a conditional promise is not sufficient to

show that his acceptance is conditional. The offer itself may either expressly or by implication

propose that the offeree make a conditional promise as his part of the exchange. By assenting to such

a proposal the offeree makes a conditional promise, but his acceptance is unconditional. The offeror's

promise may also be conditional on the same or a different fact or event.

Illustration

<font color=red>3. A makes a written offer to B to sell him Blackacre. By usage the offer is understood as

promising a marketable title. B replies, "I accept your offer if you can convey me a marketable title."

There is a contract[/color]

Would someone please suggest a course of action for this situtation,

Filed UCC 1 over a year ago and did 4 irs Levys with the accepted for value on the Levys and the irs stopped taking my property from my SSA check. I just received a letter from the SSA they received a Notice of Levy from the irs and will start taking my property ( $ ) out of my check for the same 4 Levys I did the accepted for value on. Any suggestion ?

[Jerseee]

seizeliberty,



In your illustration in red, there is no contract. Until "A" accepts the conditions of "B" then there is mutual assent. There is a possibility that "A" does not want to give "B" a marketable title.



Silvereagle,



File a lawsuit against them both. If you have these documents that is your evidence.



However, I highly recommend you find case law that supports your position as well. Then the judge cannot make new law according to your case and must rule on the evidence and case law that you provide.

Jerseee,



The example was taken, verbatim, directly from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts published by The American Law Institute here and can also be found in UCC 2-207. Please read the entire post, particularly (b).



I'm no expert but according to those "authorities" there is a contract.

Sorry, the link above does not work. You can find the Restatement (Second) of Contracts on the first page of the Downloads.

seizeliberty, Jerseee,



I am far from being an expert as well, but if I had a quarter for every time I heard the word "Blackacre" I could buy a dozen cases of quality beer...Liberty Ale rocks!



Anyway, this 'red' example sucks. They should never have used a Real Property example in a Restatement of Contracts - it makes things more complicated. The example above presumes that B is aware of the trade usage regarding real property (that a marketable title is always implied in a conveyance of Real Property unless otherwise stated), therefore there is mutual assent (maybe not subjectively as per the meeting of the minds, but mutual assent is measured objectively). So, 'A' does not have the choice of conveying non-marketable title unless he discloses it as such (which he does not here), so the contract can be rescinded by 'B' up until the date of closing (the time by which 'A' must produce a marketable title). The condition is there to show that when there is a transaction already involving an implied condition within a contract, the (now meaningless) condition by the offeree of the same already implied condition within the contract does not alter the agreement/acceptance.



A simple example would be: 'A' says, "I will sell you my bat for $5". 'B' replies, "I will buy your bat if you have the right to sell me your bat." The condition is useless because it is already implied that 'A' is the owner of the bat, because he cannot convey a bat that is not his (in this example).



Just to let others know as well, all Restatements of Law are not Laws in themselves - judges have ruled against their construction/interpretation (but rarely). Always cite caselaw/code/statute.



Hope this helps.



-squirrels

The "twist" is estoppel by aquiesence with an arbitration provision included in the event there is a dishonor by the presenting or offering party.



Nothing to exciting, however it is a means to an end in most cases. I shall dig up an example and post it here soon.



R1

[Jerseee]

Squirrels,



Good synopsis.



The reason I said there is no contract is because I will not assume the merits of the case to be implied. "B" can always change their mind or "A" cannot accept the conditions of "B" which would lead me to believe that "A" does not have the right to sell anything. In either case, I cannot determine that there is contract because the statement is not complete and all the facts are not available.



Also, to say that there is a contract may force a sale that is unlawful if "A" does not have the rights to even sell the item.



Just my position on the matter--this is nothing written in stone.

I agree, the Restatement should not be quoted as Law but I think it is a great tool for understanding contracting and how all this really works.



I think the point of all this (the example taken from the Restatement) was to illustrate what the acceptance letter accomplishes. That being: setting "them" up to fail in a big way.



First, you are unconditionally accepting the offer thereby completing the contract, removing controversy and controlling the contract.



Second, you are requesting they do some accounting, i.e. adjust the account.



Third, you are requesting they prove they have authority to make the offer and to prove they have a claim of title. This is implied but they can't come up with the proof.



Not only do they not accept your acceptance, they don't adjust the account and they don't prove their authority/claim.



They dishonor/default, we win!



No?