Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.  Sincerely,  [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.  Sincerely,  [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10. Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $1,050 a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said, "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me 46 yours for $950?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's"In a lawsuit by Slicker against Duffer for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding Slicker's letter of October 9?
The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as Slicker mailed it. Mailing of the letter by Slicker did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent, effective revocation by Duffer of his offer.  The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by Duffer on November 10.  Regardless of whether Duffer's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch
Question: Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $1,200 upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand.  Sincerely,  [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer, and promise to deliver the bike as you specified.  Sincerely,  [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10. Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $1,050 a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said, "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $1,050. Would you consider selling me 46 yours for $950?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:15 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until 12:15 p.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's"In a lawsuit by Slicker against Duffer for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding Slicker's letter of October 9?
A. The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as Slicker mailed it.
B. Mailing of the letter by Slicker did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent, effective revocation by Duffer of his offer. 
C. The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by Duffer on November 10. 
D. Regardless of whether Duffer's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch
Answer: