Court Opinion

ID: 9627878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:57:55.041536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:51.916120
License: Public Domain

*403ERICKSON, Justice,
specially concurring in the result:
I agree with the majority that the suba-gency created by the multiple listing service in this case caused the counterproposal to ripen into an enforceable contract when it was signed by the Stortroens and delivered to Mary Panio, the subagent. People v. Colorado Springs Board of Realtors, Inc., 692 P.2d 1055, 1059 (Colo.1984). I write separately because the result reached by the majority can be supported not only because Mary Panio was a subagent of the broker representing Beneficial Finance Co. of Colorado (Beneficial), but also because the Stortroens’ acceptance of the contract was effective when it was signed and put out of their possession.
Beneficial’s counteroffer stated: “If this counterproposal is accepted by Purchaser, as evidenced by Purchaser’s signature hereon, and if Seller receives notice of such acceptance on or before 9 P.M. 2-3-84, 1984, the said proposed contract, as amended hereby, shall become a contract between the parties.” The acceptance provision formulated by Beneficial is ambiguous at best because the formation of a contract between the Stortroens and Beneficial depended not only upon the signature by the Stortroens, but also upon the delivery of notice of acceptance to Beneficial “on or before 9:00 P.M. 2/3/84, 1984.” In my view, the delivery requirement imposed a further condition on the validity of the acceptance, but did not prevent the acceptance from becoming effective when the counteroffer was signed and given to Panio for delivery to Beneficial.
Under general principles of contract law, “it is essential to an acceptance by promise either that the offeree exercise reasonable diligence to notify the offeror of acceptance or that the offeror receive the acceptance seasonably.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 56 (1979). However, if the offeree exercised reasonable diligence to notify the offeror, or if the offeror received the acceptance seasonably, the acceptance is operative “os soon as [it is] put out of the offeree’s possession, without regard to whether it ever reached the offeror....” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 63 (1979) (emphasis added).
It is undisputed that the Stortroens signed the counterproposal and immediately gave it to Panio with directions to deliver it to Beneficial. Because the acceptance was effective at the time the counterpropo-sal was put out of the Stortroens’ possession, Beneficial’s later revocation was ineffective. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 68, 42 (1979). The Stortroens’ decision to use Panio as an intermediary for delivery of the contract was reasonable, as it was the method chosen by Beneficial to communicate the counterproposal or offer to the Stortroens. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 65 (1979).
The ambiguous acceptance provision of the counterproposal does not alter the result under accepted principles of contract law. When the terms of a contract are ambiguous, they must be strictly construed against the party drafting the contract. Greenshoe Manufacturing Co. v. Farber, 712 P.2d 1014, 1016 (Colo.1986). Construing the provision strictly against Beneficial, as we must, the notification requirement merely imposes a further condition on the validity of the Stortroens’ acceptance, and does not extend the time at which the acceptance was effective. The parties stipulated that the Stortroens complied with all conditions of acceptance set forth in the counterproposal, and the acceptance therefore was valid and effective at the time it was given to Panio.