The People's Court Puppy Case. I'm Still With Grotius!

October 25th, 2013.

To: Judge Marilyn Milian, The People’s Court (http://peoplescourt.warnerbros.com/),

I enjoy your television show but I disagree with your recent ruling over the undelivered pick-of-the-litter puppy – which aired today on KCAL 9, Los Angeles.

Given the partial facts I heard from the case which included an offer of $450 for the pick-of-the-litter puppy, regarding the denial/rejection of the offer to buy a puppy after the breeder/offeree had apparently previously accepted the same offer and the subsequent law suit for the value of the puppy and lost profits in the form of future stud fees by the frustrated buyer/offeror which was the subject of your ruling, I disagree with your verdict for the plaintiff/offeror.  If anything, I would say the buyer/offeror is merely entitled to the return of her deposit.  Nevertheless it was sort of bizarre behavior by the breeder to not allow the plaintiff an opportunity to match the second offer.  But it was not bizarre at all for the breeder to accept the later/second offer from a third party which doubled the amount offered by the plaintiff for the same dog.   Either way, the breeder’s/offeree’s behavior was not contrary to contract law/theory, in my opinion.  As I have stated elsewhere still applies to this pick-of-the-litter puppy case: "I’m with Grotius."  (See:  I’m with Grotius – and maybe with Dodds too, but not with Dickerson; located at http://engineeringandcommerce.blogspot.com/2013/02/im-with-grotius-and-maybe-with-dodds.html.)  

But in the end, I really have no problem with your awarding the plaintiff the value of the dog if that is what she had invested in the rescinded deal – if such a rescission actually took place, of which I am skeptical.  I am skeptical because I don't believe a deal was ever officially agreed upon nor was any deal actually set to transpire - as there was no writing in the matter, regardless of any feigned acceptance or not.  (Again, I didn’t hear all the facts as I tuned in late.) (See: ‘The peril of perjury and error is latent in the spoken promise’ – Cordozo; at http://engineeringandcommerce.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-peril-of-perjury-and-error-is.html.)

However, I wanted to blog that I disagree with the typical run-of-mill offer-and-acceptance baloney.  The offer has not been accepted until the full compensation/consideration has been exchanged, in my humble opinion (see the referenced link '...Grotius' above for more information).  Of course, many a law school may have many a problem with my outlook on many a legal matter – but nary an offeree would!   :)

Adam Trotter, P.E.   

I’m with Grotius – and maybe with Dodds too, but not with Dickerson.

November 14th, 2012

I agree with Grotius – the 17th century Dutch jurist, in that one can freely revoke their offer to agree/contract.  To expand on his sentiment, one should be able revoke an offer even after it has been accepted, in my opinion.  Moreover, I view an offer and an acceptance as just furthering the negotiation process until a definite agreement has been stated – which of course would be when the situation becomes a win-win for both parties; or so the possibility exists, anyhow.  If you find the last point blasphemous, hear this:  Until the point where products or money or whatever valuable consideration begins to change hands and does change hands, everything is still up in the air.  Larger and more long-term deals may have some problems with this sentiment of mine, but even there, nearly all terms of an agreement should be open to re-negotiation at any time. 

One should be able to revoke an offer at anytime, because such seems to happen all the time anyhow.  Let’s say A has a couple of tickets to the big show this evening.  He can’t attend or wants to sell the tickets for the money, or whatever.  B has expressed an interest in buying the tickets.  A says he wants $100 each to sell.  B hesitates and says he will get back to A with his decision in a little while.  B decides to buy and contacts A attempting to accept A’s offer of $100 each for the tickets.  A now declines to sell saying he wants $175 each.  For the purists in the crowd, assume this is not a face to face discussion (let’s make it an email or cell phone text offer or fax or something) and maybe A has received another offer for more money than his initial $100 dollar offer in the interim since the time A made the initial offer to B.  Anyway, in this hypothetical, no valid offer would have been apparent according to the proposed doctrine and A is free to take the higher offer for the tickets. 

AVT