# Legal question: an act of goat **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 6, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634 "2011-01-06T18:03:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/61 "2011-01-21T16:57:34Z")
It might help if you describe what an “ordinary retail transaction” looks like. In any event, to have a contract, you still need offer and acceptance, whether express (by writing or verbal communication) or constructively (implied by conduct). ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/62 "2011-01-21T17:01:40Z")
Buyer goes to an electronics store and sees a flat screen TV with a sticker on it showing a retail price of $1,000. [INVITATION TO OFFER] Buyer tells seller, I’d like to buy this $1,000 flat screen TV. [OFFER] Seller says, “OK.” [ACCEPTANCE] BOOM! Contract. If the buyer backs out now, the seller could sue for breach with damages of lost profit. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/63 "2011-01-21T17:32:11Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > Buyer goes to an electronics store and sees a flat screen TV with a sticker on it showing a retail price of $1,000. [INVITATION TO OFFER] > > Buyer tells seller, I’d like to buy this $1,000 flat screen TV. [OFFER] > > Seller says, “OK.” [ACCEPTANCE] > > BOOM! Contract. > > If the buyer backs out now, the seller could sue for breach with damages of lost profit. This is straight out of a law school textbook. That’s simply not how contract law works in real life. Admittedly I’m going on a limb with extreme language here, but it would be an exceedingly exceptional circumstance for any court in the United States to find the existence of an enforceable contract in such a situation and award damages for breach. You’d have to be crazy to even bring such a claim. Yes, offer and acceptance are basic to contract formation. But offer and acceptance are not rote concepts such as given in this example. Offer and acceptance don’t occur only through words but also through action. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/64 "2011-01-21T18:23:28Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This is straight out of a law school textbook. That’s simply not how contract law works in real life. > > Admittedly I’m going on a limb with extreme language here, but it would be an exceedingly exceptional circumstance for any court in the United States to find the existence of an enforceable contract in such a situation and award damages for breach. You’d have to be crazy to even bring such a claim. > > Yes, offer and acceptance are basic to contract formation. But offer and acceptance are not rote concepts such as given in this example. Offer and acceptance don’t occur only through words but also through action. If I understand, you are saying that, regardless of what happens in the retail context leading up to the point of sale, there is no contract until the actual point of sale. The buyer places the item on the counter. The seller rings it up on the cash register. The seller then asks for payment of the amount shown. The buyer’s act of handing over the money is the offer and the cashier’s acceptance of the money is the acceptance? What if the buyer carelessly handed over $800, the cashier then asked for the additional $200, and the buyer then had second thoughts, attempted to back out, and asked to cancel the transaction requesting the $800 back? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/65 "2011-01-21T18:38:33Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > What if the buyer carelessly handed over $800, the cashier then asked for the additional $200, and the buyer then had second thoughts, attempted to back out, and asked to cancel the transaction requesting the $800 back? You think a court is going to force him to complete a transaction he no longer wants to complete or award the seller $1,000 for a TV the buyer no longer wants? No way. In an ordinary retail context, there is essentially no formation until at least one side has completed performance. Of course the buyer can ask for his $800 dollars back. No court is going to award damages in a case like this. They will say, “seller, you’ve still got your TV, which you can sell to someone else; buyer, you’ve still got your money; no harm, no foul.” ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/66 "2011-01-21T19:30:30Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > You think a court is going to force him to complete a transaction he no longer wants to complete or award the seller $1,000 for a TV the buyer no longer wants? No way. In an ordinary retail context, there is essentially no formation until at least one side has completed performance. Of course the buyer can ask for his $800 dollars back. No court is going to award damages in a case like this. They will say, “seller, you’ve still got your TV, which you can sell to someone else; buyer, you’ve still got your money; no harm, no foul.” What you are saying is that there may be no actual damages for the breach of a retail contract, not that one was never formed in the first place. Conceptually, those are different issues. But there is - the time to mitigate the loss of profit from that transaction. The whole reason the seller wants to sell, is to make a profit. By breaching the contract, you are denying them that - from that sale. It is true that they are under a duty to mitigate that loss, and the actual measure of damages may be small if they can sell the object to the very next customer - but it is not _nothing_. If it was, why would they care about making the sale to you in the first place? Put it this way - if our farmer has a whole crowd of people wanting to buy his goat, he loses nothing by losing one customer, since he can instantly sell it to the next (mitigation). OTOH, what if through the whole fair, you were the only person who showed any interest? If he loses the sale to you, he has to take the goat back home with him. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/67 "2011-01-21T19:42:16Z")
You’re proving my point. You can come up with scenarios in which a seller can make an argument that harm has been suffered. But you’re not going to find a court who’s going to enforce a contract in such a case, even if there are contemplable damages. People pull out of routine, day-to-day transactions all the time. If all those situations constituted legal breaches of contract, life would come to a standstill. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/68 "2011-01-21T19:47:57Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > You’re proving my point. You can come up with scenarios in which a seller can make an argument that harm has been suffered. But you’re not going to find a court who’s going to enforce a contract in such a case, even if there are contemplable damages. People pull out of routine, day-to-day transactions all the time. If all those situations constituted legal breaches of contract, life would come to a standstill. But you haven’t given any reasons other than your assertion as to why your point is correct. Agreed that such cases do not come often to court, and for very good reason - not enough at stake to make it worth anyone’s while. No-one is going to actually sue over such tiny loses, and no retailer in its right mind would waste its time suing its customers in this manner - but that doesn’t mean they would have no case, legally. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/69 "2011-01-21T20:26:10Z")
**davidm** , as previously discussed in this thread, the actual bills themselves are likely to survive the goat’s digestive tract intact. The only reason to involve the Treasury Department is because you think they’re “icky”. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/70 "2011-01-21T21:12:57Z")
When does the offer & acceptance occur? At that point, you have a binding contract. If BUYER silently takes the TV from the shelf to a cashier, it makes sense that the offer occurs at the time BUYER tenders payment. The tender is the offer. The offer is the amount tendered. The acceptance of the payment is the acceptance of the terms of the contract. If the amount tendered is less than amount the store is willing to accept, then the cashier is free to reject the offer and hand the money back. However, if BUYER walks into the store and says to SELLER, “I offer you $1,000 for that TV” and the seller says, “I accept your offer” then the contract is formed before reaching the point of sale. Taking the TV over to the cash register and exchanging money and possession of the good is performance of an existing contract. If BUYER then tries to cancel at the register, it’s a breach. Although not obligated to do so, SELLER will likely refrain from trying to enforce the contract and agree to mutual rescission, as that might make good business sense. You seem to be saying that no matter what happens before the point of sale, there cannot be a contract until the point of sale. I don’t understand how you can dismiss the express verbal offer and acceptance in this case. As far as damages, if the seller is a volume seller, the fact that the seller can keep the TV and sell it to someone else doesn’t mean there was no damage from the breach. Had the buyer actually performed, then the seller would have made TWO sales instead of just one. The measure of damages is the profit seller would have made on the lost sale. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/71 "2011-01-21T21:22:46Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > I don’t understand how you can dismiss the express verbal offer and acceptance in this case. Because it simply does not jibe with customary and expected behaviour. When people go to a retail establishment and ask the price, they do not believe that they are soliciting an offer that will then form a contract with a simple statement of approval. They do not believe so, they do not behave as if they are doing so, they do not expect it to be so. And the same is the true of the retail vendor. It is also customary and expected behaviour to be able to back out of a transaction up until the very point of tendering payment. The case is different, of course, with arm’s-length transactions, such as through the mail or on the internet. In such case, the vendor expects assurance of payment before transferring possession of the goods. Similarly, the buyer expects assurance of delivery before tendering payment. In both cases, at least one side has completed performance. In addition, there will often be explicit written language supporting the notion of the existence of mutual promises on both sides. None of this is true in a routine retail transaction. The expectations simply aren’t there. The customary behaviour does not line up with the idea of formation until performance has been accomplished by at least one party. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/72 "2011-01-21T21:26:28Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > When people go to a retail establishment and ask the price, they do not believe that they are soliciting an offer that will then form a contract with a simple statement of approval. You’re changing the hypothetical from a firm offer to a price inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/73 "2011-01-21T21:58:00Z")
Because nobody treats a retail purchase situation as a “firm offer,” neither the seller nor the buyer. Contract law isn’t magic words. You don’t trick people into making legally enforceable promises. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/74 "2011-01-21T22:00:55Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Because nobody treats a retail purchase situation as a “firm offer,” neither the seller nor the buyer. Contract law isn’t magic words. You don’t trick people into making legally enforceable promises. What’s tricky about “I’ll buy this, thank you”? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/75 "2011-01-21T22:05:15Z")
“I changed my mind. I don’t want it.” ---
**Author:** ![Hoopy\_Frood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hoopy_frood/32/8452_2.png) [@Hoopy\_Frood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoopy_Frood)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/76 "2011-01-23T04:14:00Z")
IANAL, but my girlfriend recently graduated law school and is currently studying for the Illinois bar exam. I told her about this thread. She read the first handful of posts and decided to address this in a way that would be expected if such a question were to show up on the bar exam. This is what she sent: > [@](#): > > Okay, I’m-a treat this as a bar review issue, and I’ll break it down this way. For the record, in the actual practice of law, this would likely never go to trial. This is simply a purely law school/bar exam-based analysis and has NO bearing on the practical realities of the law. > > First off, there IS no “general common law” necessarily…there is federal common law, state common law, etc. The answer to your question would likely be governed by the laws of the state wherein the goat, seller and buyer are present. This is the case so long as the parties all hail from the same state and the action happens within that area. If it occurs across state-boundaries or between parties hailing from different states, two different state laws will be at issue, and a conflict of laws problem may arise…and this isn’t a federal crime, so no federal law will be at issue either. > > Still, presuming both parties are from the same state and the sale was to occur within that state’s boundaries, you have two obvious situations that jump out at me. First, there is the issue of whether a contract existed at the time the goat ate the money that is pursuable under contract law. Second, there is the issue of whether the goat snatching the money out of the buyer’s hand constitutes a tort. I’ll break them down individually, since the legal approach will be different. > > As to whether there was a contract created, we are without a decent amount of evidence that would need to be present. Oral contracts (if you are able to PROVE them, which is always difficult in a court of law) would be valid in this situation, since, being a sale of goods for under $500, between 2 apparent lay people, to be fulfilled within a year, etc. would keep it well within the statute of frauds and no writing should be required for the sale. The next matter to contend with is whether a valid contract was formed. > > A valid contract will be formed if there is offer, acceptance and consideration. Since we have no knowledge of what communication went on between the two parties, other than the fact that they agreed the price was good, this is difficult to deduce. If during the conversation, there was an offer (“Hey guy! I offer you this fine goat for $100!”), acceptance of the offer (“Why certainly, noble goat-dealer! $100 seems like a good price for the goat, so I accept your fine offer!”) and consideration (the promise to pay $100 by the buyer and the promise to hand over the goat by the seller) then a valid contract was formed. Now, here it again gets tricky. In this situation, there is a valid contract formed. However, it is incumbent upon the buyer to deliver their consideration to the seller. Who will be responsible for breach of contract here? That, again, depends on a variety of factors… > > If the goat is considered an intervening force preventing the fulfillment of the contract, then the breach hasn’t happened yet. Buyer still has the opportunity to purchase the goat and seller still has the opportunity to sell it to them. They MAY change the contract, if the seller feels bad for the buyer and gives him the goat, or the buyer lets it go, but if the offer/acceptance/consideration elements are met, there is still a contract and the act of the goat eating the money does NOT cause a breach. A breach will not occur until one party either refuses to pay or refuses to tender the goat. If there WAS an oral contract, then the buyer still owes the seller $100 and the seller still owes the buyer the goat in exchange for that money within a reasonable amount of time. > > If, however, there was NO acceptance – meaning the buyer did NOT say “I accept our offer” and handing over the money was to BE his method of acceptance, then there is NO CONTRACT. Since the act of acceptance has not been performed, the buyer has not officially accepted the offer and no contract has been formed. The seller still CAN accept the offer within a reasonable amount of time, but he is under no obligation to do so. > > Now, REGARDLESS of whether a contract has been formed between the seller and the buyer, which is a completely separate analysis, we need to deal with any and all tort liability on the part of the seller for the actions of his goat. > > In this situation, the tort at issue would be a matter of strict liability, since there isn’t the requisite intent for battery, and, since I doubt the seller intended the goat to eat money or, essentially, attack the buyer, this is a situation where there is liability without fault. > > Analyzing this as a strict liability issue, the prima facie case for this tort requires (1) the existence of an absolute duty to make safe, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) that is the actual and proximate cause (4) of the buyer’s injuries. Now, since the goat belonged to the seller and was within his control, the duty exists. Second, since the goat ate the buyer’s money while within that control an there is a public duty to keep an animal-owner’s animals from harming a person, there was a breach of the duty, Finally, the goat eating the money was the actual and proximate cause of the buyer’s injury or damages (the loss of $100). As such, the elements are met for strict tort liability. In this situation, the goat-seller will owe the goat buyer $100. He does NOT owe him the goat, just the $100 the goat ate (though if the buyer still wants the goat, he can accept it instead, I suppose…) > > An exception to this would be if the goat is classified as a “domesticated animal” who has never attacked or done such an activity before. Most states have the “one free bite” rule, which states that with a DOMESTICATED animal (generally like a dog or a cat) the threat of the animal attacking is not REASONABLY FORESEEABLE until they have attacked once before. If the goat is classified by the state they are in as a domesticated animal and has never done this sort of thing before, then the seller owes NOTHING to the buyer. He gets one free bite and seller is not liable for the damages. > > If, however, the goat is legally classified as domesticated and HAS done such a thing before, OR the goat is NOT legally classified as a domesticated animal, then there is NO free bite and the seller has a duty to the buyer to keep his animal from doing harm to others. He owes the buyer his $100. This is depended upon the law of the state they are in, though. > > Now, in a court of law, these would be analyzed independently of each other. If there WAS a contract for the sale of the goat that had verbal acceptance, the buyer owes the seller $100 for the goat and the seller owes the buyer the animal. THEN, even IF this is the case, if the goat is not domesticated or has done this before, REGARDLESS of the remedy for the breach of contract, the seller owes the buyer $100. If there was no contract liability, there may still be tort liability. If there is no tort liability, there may still be contract liability. Both liabilities may exist or neither. These would simply be viewed independent of each other. > > Now, for the record, this is a legal analysis that would work on a law school exam or the bar exam. This is COMPLETELY independent of reality!!! Realistically, a situation like this would be best worked out without the court’s involvement…oral contracts are hard to prove (without witnesses, they are practically impossible…) and the cost of filing suit would likely far outstrip the small sum that the parties could receive in response to their damages. The parties could likely take this to a small-claims court to deal with (or just go on Judge Judy…) but they would still need to prove these various elements before any award could be granted. > > Hope this answers your question…sorry if others have already covered all this. OH! And as a disclaimer, if you are a goat-seller or goat-buyer who is looking for legal counseling on such a matter, I am simply a law student and anything written herein should not be in any way, shape or form taken as legal counsel. Acting on my advice in your goat transactions is unwise, since I am not a lawyer in any state yet. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/77 "2011-01-23T23:47:23Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Because nobody treats a retail purchase situation as a “firm offer,” neither the seller nor the buyer. Contract law isn’t magic words. You don’t trick people into making legally enforceable promises. You aren’t getting it at several levels. Firstly this is a legal hypothetical and you are nitpicking the practicalities. Sure, no one would bother enforcing the contract. The money wouldn’t actually be eaten by the goat, and a goat isn’t actually worth $100, either. Why not point that out too? It’s a hypothetical. Why are you bothering with nitpicking in this way? It’s a question designed to elicit a discussion of the underlying legal principles; pointing out practical enforcement details is silly. Secondly, the OP explicitly says there was an agreement. The buyer **agrees** to buy the goat for $100. There is no wiggle room here. It is not a question of the buyer making some casual enquiry about price and I have no idea why you would try to alter the hypothetical clearly stated in the OP. Thirdly, you say: > [@acsenray](#): > > Because nobody treats a retail purchase situation as a “firm offer,” neither the seller nor the buyer. Contract law isn’t magic words. You don’t trick people into making legally enforceable promises. For a start, why the heck are you talking about a “retail purchase situation”? This is a guy buying a goat at a market. It’s not Walmart (not that it would make any difference to the legal principles involved). I’ve seen litigated enforcement of a verbal agreement to buy livestock before. Admittedly the bulls in question were worth more than $100 but are you seriously trying to suggest that there is some sort of lower cash limit to legal principles? And then, yes contract is magic words. Accept or make an offer in a situation where someone can enforce it against you and you will pay. I’ve seen verbal contracts that someone wanted to get out of cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have no Og damned idea what this “trick people into making legally enforceable promises” is about. Where does that come from? The OP says the buyer agrees to buy the goat for $100 and now suddenly this was achieved by trickery? Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/78 "2011-01-24T03:48:18Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > You aren’t getting it at several levels. > > Firstly this is a legal hypothetical and you are nitpicking the practicalities. See, this is the difference between a law student and someone who actually deals with the law professionally. Legal hypotheticals looked at this way is nothing more than navel gazing. This kind of assertion of “contract” would be kicked out of court so fast your head would spin. > [@](#): > > And then, yes contract is magic words. Accept or make an offer in a situation where someone can enforce it against you and you will pay. The idea of offer plus acceptance plus consideration equaling a contract is a simplified example of what contract law is really about. It’s about ascertaining the parties’ intention (“meeting of the minds” is a term you might be familiar with). If the circumstances and custom surrounding a situation are not the kind of circumstances in which people customarily intend or expect to be entering into legally binding agreements, then the magic words of offer and acceptance won’t make it happen. The law is concerned with ascertaining intent. No ordinary, routine conversation about thee price of things is suddenly going to bind people who routinely engage in such conversations and don’t expect or intend to be bound. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/79 "2011-01-24T09:01:01Z")
No its the difference between recognising a legal hypothetical on a messageboard designed to raise some interesting legal questions and dealing with it accordingly, and being dismissive of the question because the amount stated isn’t (as it happens) large enough to make implementation of legal remedies practical. As to the rest of your post, I agree with you about intention. Which bit of "agrees to buy the goat for $100. As the buyer takes out his wad of cash in order to hand it to the farmer… " are you having trouble understanding, and why exactly are you still wibbling on about “… routine conversation about the price of things…”? ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634/80 "2011-01-24T15:33:25Z")
PERSON1: I offer you $x for this \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. PERSON2: I accept your offer. This sounds to me like a definitive communication from each party of an intent to be bound in any context, retail or not. If this conversation occurs before the point of sale, I’d say there’s a contract at the exact moment of the verbal acceptance (excepting the statute of frauds). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-an-act-of-goat/566634.md?page=5)