A woman emails her friend that she would like to buy the friend's teacup collection for $1,000 when times are better, and the friend emails back agreeing. They do not exchange money or teacups and meet a year later; the friend says she will deliver next weekend and accept a check then. The woman says she would pay $750; the friend says, 'Haven’t we already discussed this? Sold.' The next day the friend hands over the teacups and the woman writes a check for $750. The friend asks for the remaining $250. The woman keeps the teacups. Is the woman liable for the remaining $250?

• A. Yes, because they formed a contract when they met in person a year later.
• B. No, because a contract was formed when they spoke in person.
• C. Yes, because the initial emails created a binding contract.
• D. No, because no contract existed until the teacups were exchanged.

Answer: (C)

Electronic communications can create a binding contract when one side makes an offer and the other accepts, even if performance is set for the future. Here, the woman’s email offering to buy the teacups for $1,000 and the friend’s email agreeing to that price formed a bargain capable of enforcement, with delivery and payment to occur later.

When the woman later proposed paying $750, that would normally be a counteroffer ending the original; but the seller’s response, effectively treating the deal as already agreed to by saying “Sold,” indicates she was sticking with the original price, not accepting a new lower price. So the contract price remained $1,000, and the subsequent delivery followed under that agreement.

The teacups were handed over and the woman paid only $750. Partial performance does not fulfill the contract price, so she remains obligated to pay the remaining $250. Keeping the teacups does not extinguish that debt.