Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

ribbon-matching rule

Read a random definition: voluntarius daemon

A quick definition of ribbon-matching rule:

The ribbon-matching rule, also known as the mirror-image rule, is a principle in contract law that states that when accepting an offer, the terms of the acceptance must match exactly with those of the offer. This means that the acceptance must be clear, unconditional, and not change any of the terms of the original offer. In simpler terms, if someone offers you something, you can only accept it if you agree to all the same things they offered you.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: The ribbon-matching rule is also known as the mirror-image rule. It is a principle in contract law that states that the acceptance of an offer must be positive, unconditional, unequivocal, and unambiguous. The terms of the acceptance must correspond exactly with those of the offer, and must not change, add to, or qualify the terms of the offer.

For example, if a seller offers to sell a car for $10,000, and the buyer responds by saying "I accept, but only if you include new tires," this would not be considered a valid acceptance under the ribbon-matching rule. The buyer has added a new term to the offer, which changes the original terms of the agreement.

In modern commercial contexts, the ribbon-matching rule has been replaced by a provision in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that allows parties to enforce their contracts even if there are minor differences between the terms of the offer and the acceptance. However, the UCC still requires that the acceptance be a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance.

RHS | Richard Roe

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.