Dov owned retail store property at 199 Trumbull Avenue. Without naming a price, Portia expressed a tentative interest in buying it, and wished to know its market value. For that purpose, with Dov's permission, Portia hired and paid two professionals, both of whom reported to her and to Dov that it was worth approximately $450,000. Immediately thereafter the parties exchanged these signed writings:
(1) Portia: As you know, I'm interested in your 199 Trumbull Avenue property, evaluated by two appraisers at $450,000. Will you sell it to me for that amount?
(2) Dov: I'll take no less than $500,000. Talk to me when you're ready to pay that price.
(3) Portia: Very well, $500,000 it is.
Portia then tendered1 to Dov a $500,000 certified check and demanded that Dov convey the property. Dov refused and Portia sued, alleging breach of contract. Dov maintained that he breached no contract because he and Portia never formed one. Which of the following judicial statements plausibly constitutes a proper assessment of the conflict?
I.Writing 1 was a mere invitation to deal. Writing 2, likewise, continued as a preliminary negotiation, manifesting Dov's willingness only to consider an offer of $500,000. Writing 3 was Portia's offer to buy for $500,000, which Dov did not accept. The parties formed no contract and Dov is not in breach.
II.Knowing of Portia's interest in the property and allowing her to have it appraised, Dov implicitly offered to sell the property at any price reasonably close to the appraised value. With writing 1, Portia proclaimed her willingness to purchase for $450,000 and thereby accepted Dov's offer. The parties formed a contract and Dov is in breach.
III.Writing 1 was a mere inquiry — an invitation to deal. Writing 2 was Dov's offer to sell for $500,000, and writing 3 was Portia's acceptance. The parties formed a contract and Dov is in breach.
A.I
B.I and II
C.I and III
D.II and III
E.I, II, and III