Brief Fact Summary. Two individuals entered into an employment contract with a company. The parties signed their contracts, but failed to return them to the company.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Acceptance of a contract need not be written or oral, sometimes symbols or nonverbal communication provides the requisite assent.
Issue. Could the offers "which by their terms did not specify the means by which they could be accepted, [ ] be accepted by a mode other than the return of the signed instruments?"
Held. Yes. The court first observes "[n]either written offer specified a particular mode of acceptance, and there is no evidence that Rio Grande ever manifested any intent that the offers could be accepted only by the return of the signed instruments." The court then observes "[t]he record is replete with evidence that the company conditioned the bonus offers primarily upon the offerees remaining in the company's employment and that the employees understood that they did not have to return the signed contracts in order to have contracts under which they would each get a ten per cent bonus." The next question then was whether the Plaintiffs adequately voiced their acceptance. The requisite assent must "clearly express[ ] an intention to accept the specific offer." Acceptance need not only be written or oral, sometimes symbols or nonverbal communication provide the requisite assent. The court then recognizes based on the facts before it, there is substantial evidence demonstrating the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff's acceptance. Most importantly, the fact the Plaintiffs would have quit if the bonus provisions were not included in their compensation packages. Also, the fact they did keep working.
However, the courts will not construe a contract to mean that the parties have agreed to act contrary to what common sense and the circumstances obviously demand, unless the contract is explicit and clear in that meaning.View Full Point of Law