Question

Doral, Inc., wished to obtain an adequate supply of lumber for its factory extension to be constructed in the spring. It contacted Ace Lumber Company and obtained a 75-day written option (firm offer) to buy its estimated needs for the building. Doral supplied a form contract that included the option. Ace signed at the physical end of the contract but did not sign elsewhere. The price of lumber has risen drastically, and Ace wishes to avoid its obligation. Which of the following is Ace's best defense against Doral's assertion that Ace is legally bound by the option?

A. The option is not supported by any consideration on Doral's part.
B. Such an option is invalid if its duration is for more than 3 months.
C. The promise of irrevocability was contained in a form supplied by Doral and was not separately signed by Ace.
D. Doral is not a merchant.

Answer 1

Ace's best defense against Doral's assertion that Ace is legally bound by the option is option C. The promise of irrevocability was contained in a form supplied by Doral and was not separately signed by Ace.

Step-by-step explanation:

Ace's best defense against Doral's assertion that Ace is legally bound by the option is option C. The promise of irrevocability was contained in a form supplied by Doral and was not separately signed by Ace. In contract law, for an offer to be valid and enforceable, there must be a meeting of the minds between both parties. In this case, Ace did not separately sign the promise of irrevocability, indicating that they did not agree to be bound by the option and can therefore avoid their obligation.