Watch the video titled, "Video Exercise 12.1: Offer and Acceptance," found on the Mindtap website. You will find the video by clicking on "Unit 1: Contracts," then "Chapter 12: The Agreement: Offers and Acceptances," then "Engage: Video Exercises," then "Video Exercise 12.1".

The video is a short vignette of a three people negotiating for the purchase of a car (BTW, you will notice that the video is older than most of you, so feel free to laugh at how outdated the people, clothes and speech are - not to mention that its' content is also fairly cheesy even for the 90's). Pay attention to the words they are using and of each party's interpretation of what is happening. I would like for you to go step by step through this negotiation and parse out the legal meaning behind what each party is saying. Below are numbered statements, which contain quotes from the video. Read the quotes and then explain the legal implications of what the person is saying. For instance, if the quote were something like the following:

1. "I'm thinking of selling my car for $5,000."
2. Legal implication: the party's statement seems to be close to constituting an offer to sell his car for $5,000. However, in order to make a valid offer, three requirements must be met: 1) the offer must exhibit the offeror's present intent to be bound by a promise or action, 2) the terms of the offer must be sufficiently definite and 3) the offer must be communicated to the offeree. In this instance, the offer is deficient since it does not indicate the offeror's present intent to be bound. Instead, the offeror is simply stating his future intention toward selling the car. He is saying that he might, at some point in the future, consider selling his car for $5,000. This is different than saying he is willing to sell it right now for $5,000 (present intent). Thus, no legal offer has been created.

Some answers may be a little redundant, in that they will refer to the same rules of contracts as previous answers. If this is the case, you do not have to re-state the same rule in each answer. You may simply refer to the rule you have cited in a previous question.

Analyze the following statements from the video and explain whether they have (attempt to have, or fail to have) any legal significance:

1. Oscar: How much are you asking for the Celica?We're friends. How about letting me have it for four thousand?
2. Vinny: I can't do it. Maybe five...
3. Oscar: Okay. I'll take it. But you gotta let me pay you four thousand now and the other thousand in two weeks.
4. Maria: You want sixty-five hundred for it, right?
5. Maria: I'll take it.
6. Oscar: I just bought it.
7. Maria: I'll give you five thousand for it, on the condition that it will pass the smog test (assume that this negotiation is taking place in a State like California that requires any vehicle sold to pass a smog test).
8. Oscar: I said I'll pay you five thousand.
9. Vinny: Is that a firm offer? You're gonna give me the cash now?
10. Oscar: Yes. I'll give you cash. Five thousand. Now.
11. Vinny: Okay. Deal.
12. Maria: Fifty-five hundred.
13. Vinny: You gonna match that offer?
14. Oscar: What do you mean, match that offer? I just bought the damn car for five thousand. I don't have to match any offer.
15. Vinny: Hey, I still had the keys in my hands. That's what counts. I give you the keys, then I've sold it to you.