Professorial Style in Context 165Prof.: Possibility of an offer or--
Student: --not an offer--
Prof.: --not an offer, just a third form of
preliminary negotiations. Which would it be in this case? Mr. C.?
Mr. C.: Well, I think, this is a- is a more negotiating for responses; we are
proceeding, it says than more of the way, it gives the fact that it’s
probably an offer rather than a negotiation. So, you would say that since
the party that responded uh would have had- could reasonably have
had- could reasonably or should reasonably believe that they have the
power of acceptance when they’re giving an order.
Prof.: Okay, but, you know, I really- I would caution you a little bit about the
way in which you articulate it. Now, [paraphrasing student] “The more
preliminary negotiation, the more likely we’ve got an offer.” We could-
we could start the process now and negotiate until doomsday, and still
maybe never find an offer. So, I don’t think the- the quantity, per se, or
the volume of preliminary negotiations is necessarily going to get it.
What’s going to get us into an offer? [... omitted material, reiterating
and clarifying question (.57 total turn time)... ] How do you- how do
you support that? Ms. H.?
Ms. H.: Umm, when Glass Works said that they could quote them a price, per
gross, for immediate acceptance, that would lead defendants to believe
that they had grounds for an acceptance, these were the grounds that
they could accept.
Prof.: Okay. They could also (), according to legal standard, I don’t care if it
was first, I don’t care if it was fifty-ninth, in the- in the order of
correspondence, the first piece of communication, which actually and
reasonably led the other party to believe the power of acceptance is
created in the offer. I would certainly agree with you, Ms. H., on an
empirical basis [... omitted material, elaborating on how to identify an
offer (2.55 total turn time)... ] Okay? Any more questions or observa-
tions on this? Mm-hmm?
Mr. Y.: Is there some objective standard by which the court decides whether a
person has reasonable- reasonably have invested his power of accep-
tance or is that solely subjective?
Prof.: Well--
Mr. Y.: --I’m not clear on what differentiates, say, the first response where
the () promised them that they will make the shipment. And in the
second one it says, “Enter our order.” I’m not sure as to what (), that
essential element differentiates, differentiates- (.)
Prof.: Well, the court, in analyzing the second piece of correspondence, said
there’s clearly an offer on the table, yeah, they received an inquiry to
what the- what the prices would be. And the court said that what we
have here is an offer. Now, if the court says that there was an offer,
hopefully they’ve got some rationale to establish how that statement, in
the context of the inquiry that preceded it, will raise actual and
reasonable belief, on the part of the buyer, that a power of acceptance is
created in them. Now, the primary focus is- there’s nothing in the facts