- 20 -
offer, the time requirement may be waived. E.g., 1 Jaeger,
Williston on Contracts, sec. 53, at 171 (3d ed. 1957):
Not infrequently an offeror who has imposed a limit of
time in his offer does not care to insist upon it and
by further negotiations may indicate a continued
willingness to stand by the terms of his offer. Any
such manifestation of continued willingness is in
effect a new offer, which may be accepted and if
accepted will ripen into a new contract. [Fn. ref.
omitted.]
We have no doubt that the time requirement contained in the
November 6 letter was waived and that the November 6 response was
a timely acceptance of an offer made by respondent, and we so
find. Indeed, respondent relied on that response in informing
the Court that no trial was necessary.
The contractual prerequisites of offer and acceptance are
present: The November 3 letter, the November 6 letter, the
November 6 response, and the surrounding circumstances constitute
the objective manifestation of mutual assent to the essential
terms of a settlement agreement. The agreement that was reached
is the agreement proposed in the November 3 letter, as modified
during the morning telephone conversation of November 6, 1995,
which is all set forth in the November 6 letter. We believe that
the parties entered into a contract to settle the docketed cases,
and we so find.
D. Repudiation
By order dated November 6, 1995, upon information that the
parties had reached a basis for settlement, the Court struck the
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011