Question

The manager of a shoe store noticed that mukluks were flying off the shelf in anticipation of another exceptionally cold winter. On November 1, the manager sent an order on the store's own form to a local manufacturer of mukluks for 100 pairs, at a cost of $90 a pair, the price listed in the manufacturer's catalogue. The manager filled in the delivery date as December 1 and signed the form. The next day, November 2, the manufacturer mailed a signed confirmation on its own form, which was the same in all respects except that it included a clause calling for arbitration of all disputes. Having found mukluks for $80 per pair from another supplier, the store manager phoned the manufacturer on November 4 and stated that the store no longer wished to order the boots. The manufacturer responded that it was too late, and that the store should expect delivery as promised in December. On November 5, the store manager received the manufacturer's confirmation. If the store manager subsequently refuses the manufacturer's delivery on December 1, who will prevail if the manufacturer sues the shoe store for breach of contract

Answer 1

Answer: The manufacturer, because the shoe store's revocation of its offer was too late.

Explanation:

Based on the scenario given in the question, if the store manager subsequently refuses the manufacturer's delivery on December 1, and thee manufacturer sues the shoe store for breach of contract, the manufacturer will prevail because the shoe store's revocation of its offer was too late.

According to the mailbox rule under the contract law, this is the default rule that's used to determine when an offer is considered to be accepted and when there's communication of the acceptance. In this case, the revocation is too late therefore the manufacturer will prevail.