There is no enforceable contract between Joanna and Rita because under Contract Law it is stated that the first requirement for any valid contract to become existent is an agreement that contains the elements of “offer” and an “acceptance”. In the case provided, Joanna did put forth an offer for Rita who then laid a condition of accepting the offer, therefore a counter-offer; also Rita had not yet accepted the offer completely. She stated in her response, that she would confirm her acceptance of the offer by Monday. In this situation, where offer was made by Joanna to Rita, as Rita had not yet accepted the offer or put forth a counter-offer to the original offer, Joanna was in her right to terminate the counter-offer for whatever reason suited her. As per contract law, termination of offer occurs in a number of ways: (1) revocation, (2) rejection, (3) failure to accept on time, (4) death and (5) failure of condition. In Joanna’s termination of the offer we have rejection as an element as well as the fact that she received a better offer from another candidate. “Rejection can take the form of an outright refusal or a counter-offer - that is, a purported acceptance but on different terms. Even if the different terms are immaterial the counter-offer will be treated as a rejection and new offer. As a result, it is important to distinguish counter-offers from mere requests for further information. To be effective rejection must be communicated; the postal rule does not apply to letters of rejection.” (Australiancontractlaw.com, 2013) Seeing as there was inevitably no acceptance of the original offer and the counter-offer presented was optional for Joanna to accept or reject, we can conclude that there was no enforceable contract in this case.
Promissory estoppel is relevant to the dispute between Max and Joanna because promissory estoppel is a “legal principle that prevents a person who made a promise from reengaging