Davis v. Jacoby – Case Brief Summary
Summary of Davis v. Jacoby, 34 P.2d 1026 (1934).
Facts
Blanche Whitehead and her husband Rupert enjoyed a close relationship with their niece Caro Davis (P). The Whitehead’s suffered health and financial difficulties and Rupert asked Davis to come to California to help take care of Blanche and assist Rupert with his business affairs. She was promised an inheritance in return for her assistance.
One week after Davis agreed Rupert committed suicide. Davis moved to California to care for Blanche. Upon Blanche’s death Davis learned that Rupert had left his entire estate to two nephews.
Davis sued Rupert’s estate (Jacoby, D), asserting that her agreement with Rupert had created a contractual obligation for him to make a will and bequest his estate to her and that she was entitled to quasi-specific performance. Davis appealed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the estate that no contract had been formed because Rupert had made a unilateral offer that could only have been accepted via performance.
Issue
What type of offer is presumed to have been made where the offer is ambiguous as to whether it is unilateral or bilateral?
Rule
An offer is presumed to be bilateral if it is ambiguous with regard to whether it is unilateral or bilateral.
The court pointed to Rupert’s statement “Will you let me hear from you as soon as possible…” as a request for an immediate reply so that he could make arrangements and rely on Davis’s promise to come to California. Furthermore, since Rupert asked her to take care of them until both of them had died, it was apparent that he had to rely on Davis’s promise to continue to care for Blanche if she survived him.
Disposition
Judgment for the estate reversed.
See Trident Center v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. for a law school contracts case brief holding that parol evidence is admissible to raise an ambiguity in a contract that is facially unambiguous.