Question 90

Any change in the contract is a counteroffer, so the offer is rejected.

When the seller changes the title company named in the offer to one where she works, this alteration constitutes a counteroffer. By making this change, the original offer is effectively rejected, and the buyer must then accept the new terms presented by the seller.

A) If the buyer does not care, it is acceptable

This option overlooks the fundamental principle that any change to the terms of the contract, regardless of the buyer's feelings, constitutes a counteroffer. The seller cannot unilaterally modify the agreement without the buyer's consent.

B) A conflict of interest is created for the seller

While this option may highlight a potential ethical concern, it does not directly address the mechanics of contract law. The key issue here is not merely the conflict of interest, but that changing the title company effectively changes the agreement, resulting in a counteroffer.

C) This is not a material change, so it is binding on the parties

This choice incorrectly assumes that the change is immaterial. However, altering the title company is a significant modification to the terms of the contract, thus rendering it a counteroffer rather than a binding agreement.

D) Any change in the contract is a counteroffer, so the offer is rejected

This option accurately reflects the legal principle that any modification to the original terms results in a counteroffer. Changing the title company is a substantial change, causing the initial offer to be rejected and requiring a new acceptance from the buyer.

Conclusion

The correct answer, D, clearly illustrates that any modification to the terms of an offer leads to a counteroffer, thus rejecting the initial proposal. Options A, B, and C fail to recognize this essential contract principle, while D correctly identifies the implications of such a change, confirming the seller's action as a counteroffer that necessitates the buyer's agreement to proceed.