1. An acceptance will create a contract. At common law, the acceptance had to be identical (mirror image) to the offer. A response that was not identical would amount to a counter-offer and cancel out the offer. Modernly, this is no longer the case. If the offeree gives a grumbling response, or if the response given contains additional terms that are unimportant (immaterial), it will still be ruled an acceptance! The UCC reflects a greater departure from the traditional common law approach. When merchants (pros) are transacting business, they almost always rely on their own forms. An offer will be made on one form and an acceptance will be presented on another form. The purported acceptance will invariably contain terms and conditions that are not in the offer. Will the additional terms cause the court to rule that a counter offer was made? Will a court find a contract based on the terms that are identical and then disregard the additional terms? Will a court find a contract and include the additional terms? Submit your answer.
2. Contract law requires proof that the offeree 'intended' to accept the offer. It is not an uncommon defense for the offeree to allege that she did not intend to accept the offer. The offeree might argue that she didn't even know that an offer was being made, or that when signing the document she failed to read all of the terms, or that she did read all of the terms but did not understand certain ones. How would an offeror prove that the offeree did intend to accept a particular offer if the offeree contended that she was only joking, or that she didn't know that an offer was being made, or that she knew she was signing an offer but she didn't read all of the terms or didn't understand some or all of the terms and conditions?