Final answer:
The correct answer is C. No, because Zen did not accept by telegram. Zen's failure to use the required method of acceptance and not adhering to the specific requirement entailed in the offer results in no enforceable contract being formed.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question at hand involves the principles of contract law, particularly those surrounding the communication of acceptance and the terms of an offer. When Yost made an offer to Zen that required the acceptance to be sent by telegram on or before a specified time, it set clear terms for how and when the acceptance needed to be communicated.
Zen chose to send the acceptance by overnight mail, which did not meet the stipulated method of acceptance, nor did it arrive within the specified time frame.
According to contract law, an offer can dictate not only the terms of the contract but also the manner in which the acceptance must be communicated. Zen's failure to use the required method of acceptance (telegram) means that he did not accept the offer per the terms provided by Yost. Therefore, the acceptance via mail, even if sent before the deadline, would not create a binding contract under these circumstances.
The correct answer is C. No, because Zen did not accept by telegram. Based on the 'mailbox rule' in contract law, the acceptance is generally effective when sent if it is made in a manner implicitly or explicitly authorized by the offer; however, when the offer stipulates a specific mode of acceptance, it must be strictly followed.
Since Yost required that the acceptance be sent by telegram—and this was not done—the acceptance sent by mail does not constitute an enforceable contract.