Karas v. Brogan
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The rule that acceptance must meet and correspond with the offer in every respect in order for an offer and acceptance to constitute a contract ordinarily presents a question as to whether there is in fact a material variance between the acceptance and the offer rather than any issue as to what principle of contract law applies. Burkhead v. Farlow (1966), 266 N. C. 595, 146 S. E. 2d 802.
Here, the trial court found that the offer specifically promised a title “free and clear of all liens and encumbrances” and that the oil lease which the acceptor referred to in his acceptance did not involve a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burkhead v. FarlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Tenbusch v. L. K. N. Realty Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1958
3Cited by15 opinions
- Browne v. Artex Oil Co. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2019
- Eisenbarth v. ReusserOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Foster v. Ohio State UniversityOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
- Gresser v. HotzlerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Goldfarb v. the Robb Report, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.