Case ID: or-app_36/html/0505-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued July 19,
    affirmed October 2, 1978
    LAMB et ux, Respondents, v. MORDEROSIAN et ux, Appellants.
    
    (No. 38-069, CA 10540)
    584 P2d 796
    Gerald R. Pullen, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.
    Ralph Bolliger, Beaverton, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Bolliger, Hampton & Tarlow, Beaverton.
    Before Johnson, Presiding Judge, and Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
   PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal from a summary judgment directing specific performance of an earnest money agreement for sale of a residence. There is no dispute as to any material facts. We decide this case on two elementary principles of law: 1) where an offeree mails to his agent both an acceptance and a counteroffer and the agent submits only the acceptance to the offeror, the offeree is bound by his agent’s actions; and 2) the acceptance was not valid until the agent communicated it to the offeror — Restatement of Contracts § 64, Illustration 2 (1932).

Affirmed.