Mortimer owns a beautiful automobile, a 1971 Chrysler Newport. Rhiannon has offered to buy the car from Mortimer on multiple occasions for $20,000, but Mortimer has always declined the offer. One night, Rhiannon visited the tavern where she knew Mortimer usually spent his evenings relaxing, having dinner, and drinking one beer. Upon her arrival, Rhiannon ordered a beer for herself and a milkshake for Mortimer. Rhiannon and Mortimer proceeded to make jokes and share a few laughs, and again she offered to buy the car from Mortimer. This time, Mortimer laughed and agreed, writing out and signing a written agreement to sell the car to Rhiannon for $20,000 on several sheets of paper brought to them by an employee of the tavern. Rhiannon observed what Mortimer was doing, and she smiled and nodded numerous times as Mortimer completed writing out the terms and then handed the sheets of paper to Rhiannon. The next day, Rhiannon showed up at Mortimer's house with her check to Mortimer for $20,000, but Mortimer insisted that the contract was invalid. Is Mortimer right? Why or why not? Mortimer is probably right - the contract appears to be invalid. It's likely that Mortimer thought that the offer to buy the car was made in jest since he and Rhiannon had been making jokes prior to the offer, and therefore neither Mortimer nor Rhiannon could have had the requisite intent. Mortimer is probably wrong - the contract appears to be valid. Rhiannon demonstrated a clear intent to make a contract as demonstrated by the fact that she has asked on several occasions to buy the car. One party's intent to be bound is, by itself, sufficient to form a contract. Mortimer is probably right - the contract must be invalid. Rhiannon has made the offer to Mortimer on multiple prior occasions, and she would have needed to offer new consideration for the contract. Since past consideration is not valid consideration, there is no contract. Mortimer is probably right - the contract appears to be invalid. A court would likely void the contract based on unconscionability since Rhiannon, knowing that Mortimer had been drinking one beer, sought out Mortimer in the tavern with the purpose of forming a contract. Mortimer is probably wrong - the contract appears to be valid. A contract is judged according to its outward manifestation. The words and actions of each party (Mortimer and Rhiannon) would likely be interpreted in favor of the formation of a legally binding contract. Mortimer owns a beautiful automobile, a 1971 Chrysler Newport. Rhiannon has offered to buy the car from Mortimer on multiple occasions for $20,000, but Mortimer has always declined the offer. One night, Rhiannon visited the tavern where she knew Mortimer usually spent his evenings relaxing, having dinner, and drinking one beer. Upon her arrival, Rhiannon ordered a beer for herself and a milkshake for Mortimer. Rhiannon and Mortimer proceeded to make jokes and share a few laughs, and again she offered to buy the car from Mortimer. This time, Mortimer laughed and agreed, writing out and signing a written agreement to sell the car to Rhiannon for $20,000 on several sheets of paper brought to them by an employee of the tavern. Rhiannon observed what Mortimer was doing, and she smiled and nodded numerous times as Mortimer completed writing out the terms and then handed the sheets of paper to Rhiannon. The next day, Rhiannon showed up at Mortimer's house with her check to Mortimer for $20,000, but Mortimer insisted that the contract was invalid. Is Mortimer right? Why or why not? Mortimer is probably right - the contract appears to be invalid. It's likely that Mortimer thought that the offer to buy the car was made in jest since he and Rhiannon had been making jokes prior to the offer, and therefore neither Mortimer nor Rhiannon could have had the requisite intent. Mortimer is probably wrong - the contract appears to be valid. Rhiannon demonstrated a clear intent to make a contract as demonstrated by the fact that she has asked on several occasions to buy the car. One party's intent to be bound is, by itself, sufficient to form a contract. Mortimer is probably right - the contract must be invalid. Rhiannon has made the offer to Mortimer on multiple prior occasions, and she would have needed to offer new consideration for the contract. Since past consideration is not valid consideration, there is no contract. Mortimer is probably right - the contract appears to be invalid. A court would likely void the contract based on unconscionability since Rhiannon, knowing that Mortimer had been drinking one beer, sought out Mortimer in the tavern with the purpose of forming a contract. Mortimer is probably wrong - the contract appears to be valid. A contract is judged according to its outward manifestation. The words and actions of each party (Mortimer and Rhiannon) would likely be interpreted in favor of the formation of a legally binding contract