Court Opinion

ID: 9761416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:42:25.600015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:23.634055
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting:
Appellant’s attorney wrote “Rather than answer before I have spoken to my client, I would prefer a brief extension.” Appellee’s attorney agreed to an extension limited to the filing of an answer. If one looks at the situation in this light, stripped of the confusing dates and passage of various time periods, this is the exact sequence of the written communications. To me, it is a classic situation of offer and acceptance within the majority’s framework of the law.
The letters were not the work of laymen, but rather of attorneys presumably skilled in the art and use of words. In this case, the word answer has a definite, absolute legal meaning. I cannot subscribe to the majority’s conclusion that the letters contain an offer and counter-offer. In legal language these communications are clearly an agreement binding upon the parties, and that agreement was breached by the filing of preliminary objections.
I would affirm the order dismissing the appellant’s preliminary objections.