1. Read the attached case about a Pennsylvania golfer who saw a sign at a course advertising a prize of a new car if a golfer scored a hole in one on that hole.As it turned out, the offer was for an tournament that had already ended but the signs had not yet been removed.Since the golfer was unaware of that fact, saw the offer and subsequently made a hole in one, the court awarded him the car, reasoning the circumstances satisfied all the requirements for a valid offer and acceptance.

2.Read the short dissenting opinion, which argues that making a hole in one is a fortuitous matter of luck and not golf skill and that the "offer" and "performance" by the golfer in making the shot was simply a matter of chance, calculated to be 1 in 20,000 and was therefore against Pennsylvania law prohibiting gambling and a (then) illegal act.

3. Who do you think was right?The majority or the dissent?Why?