Under common law, what can constitute acceptance of an offer?

Under common law, what can constitute acceptance of an offer?

• A. Performance, only offeree can accept, unless option contract, silence limited, unauthorized method of acceptance while offer is open, mirror image rule
• B. Acceptance by silence in all cases
• C. Acceptance by counteroffer is valid
• D. Acceptance requires the offeror's explicit consent

Answer: (A)

Acceptance at common law is assent to the terms of the offer, and it can come in different forms depending on the type of contract. If the offer invites performance (a unilateral contract), acceptance occurs through that performance, not a spoken promise. For bilateral offers, acceptance is typically a promise communicated to the offeror. In both cases, the offeree is the one who accepts; you can’t bind by accepting on someone else’s behalf unless you’re authorized. Silence generally does not count as acceptance. An offeror may have limited situations where silence operates as acceptance, but those are narrow and require specific circumstances or prior dealings. The mirror image rule matters too: acceptance must correspond exactly to the offer’s terms. If the offeree adds terms or changes terms, that’s a counteroffer, not acceptance. The idea of an option contract adds a wrinkle: when an offer is kept open for a set time in exchange for consideration, the offer cannot be revoked during that period, and acceptance can occur within that window, still governed by the same rules about form and timing. An unauthorized method of acceptance won’t bind the offeror unless the offeror has authorized that method or the situation fits the option framework. So the best view is that acceptance can be by performance, must be by the offeree, is not typically by silence, must mirror the offer, and is subject to the option-contract exception where the offer remains open for a specified time.

Acceptance at common law is assent to the terms of the offer, and it can come in different forms depending on the type of contract. If the offer invites performance (a unilateral contract), acceptance occurs through that performance, not a spoken promise. For bilateral offers, acceptance is typically a promise communicated to the offeror. In both cases, the offeree is the one who accepts; you can’t bind by accepting on someone else’s behalf unless you’re authorized.

Silence generally does not count as acceptance. An offeror may have limited situations where silence operates as acceptance, but those are narrow and require specific circumstances or prior dealings. The mirror image rule matters too: acceptance must correspond exactly to the offer’s terms. If the offeree adds terms or changes terms, that’s a counteroffer, not acceptance.

The idea of an option contract adds a wrinkle: when an offer is kept open for a set time in exchange for consideration, the offer cannot be revoked during that period, and acceptance can occur within that window, still governed by the same rules about form and timing. An unauthorized method of acceptance won’t bind the offeror unless the offeror has authorized that method or the situation fits the option framework.

So the best view is that acceptance can be by performance, must be by the offeree, is not typically by silence, must mirror the offer, and is subject to the option-contract exception where the offer remains open for a specified time.