Montgomery v. English on page 175
1. Read and understand the case. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to use the concepts of the course to show your reasoning. Summarize the situation. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic:
a. Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant and tell something about them.]
b. Facts [Summarize those facts critical to the outcome of the case.]
c. Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]
d. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns.]
e. Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
f. Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court’s decision.]
g. Case Questions [Be sure to address and thoroughly answer each and every case question and each part of each question.]
h. Conclusion [This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court’s ruling.]
i. Include citations on the slides and a reference page with your sources. Use APA style citations and references.
2. Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties, or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.
3. Pay strict attention to quality in terms of substance, form, grammar, and context.
CASE 10.3 Mirror Image Rule Montgomery v. English
902 So.2d 836, Web 2005 Fla.App. Lexis 4704 (2005) Court of Appeal of Florida
“Florida employs the ‘mirror image rule’ with respect to contracts. Under this rule, in order for a contract to be formed, an acceptance of an offer must be absolute, unconditional, and identical with the terms of the offer.”
-Judge Palmer
Facts
Norma English made an offer to purchase a house owned by Michael and Lourie Montgomery (Montgomery) for $272,000. English included in her offer a request to purchase several items of Montgomery’s personal property, including paving stones and a fireplace screen. After Montgomery received English’s offer, Montgomery made several changes to the offer, including (1) deleting certain items, including the paving stones and fireplace screen, from the personal property section of the offer; (2) deleting a provision regarding latent defects; (3) deleting a provision regarding building inspections; and (4) adding a specific “AS IS” rider. Montgomery signed their counteroffer and delivered it to English. English initialed most of Montgomery’s changes except she did not initial the change that deleted the paving stones and fireplace screen -which were worth about $100-from the deal. Montgomery, relying on the “mirror image rule,” notified English that she had not completely accepted their offer and that they were therefore withdrawing their offer to sell their house to English. That same day Montgomery signed a contract to sell their house to another buyer for $285,000. English sued Montgomery for specific performance of the contract. The trial court held in favor of English and ordered specific performance. Montgomery appealed.
Issue
Was an enforceable contract made between English and Montgomery?
Language of the Court
Montgomery argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for summary judgment because the record demonstrated that there had been no meeting of the minds between the parties as to the essential terms of the contract. We agree. Florida employs the “mirror image rule” with respect to contracts. Under this rule, in order for a contract to be formed, an acceptance of an offer must be absolute, unconditional, and identical with the terms of the offer. Applying the mirror image rule to these undisputed facts we hold that, as a matter of law, the parties failed to reach an agreement on the terms of the contract and, therefore, no enforceable contract was created.
Decision
The court of appeal held that because of the mirror image rule, no contract had been created between the parties. The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s order of specific performance and remanded the case to the trial court, with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Montgo
Case Questions
Critical Legal Thinking What does the mirror image rule provide? Explain.
Business Ethics Did Montgomery act ethically when they backed out of selling the house? Did English act ethically by trying to force the sale of the house to her?
Contemporary Business Does the mirror image rule add certainty to contracting? Explain.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]
