I am a little confused by the holding in Keller v. Holderman. Unless I am misunderstanding, the court holds that since there was no binding contract between the parties, the plaintiff now holds a worthless check that defendant has no responsibility to cover. But the defendant doesn't have to return the watch. If the defendant does have to return the watch, than I don't have a problem with this holding, it just puts the parties back where they were before they began "frolicing and bantering," but if the defendant is allowed to keep the watch than this holding seems extremely unfair. The man who traded for an actual good benefits, but the man who traded for a credit for a good is harmed. This seems to draw a silly distinction between a watch in hand and a check that one can reasonably expect to cash. This places the party who accepts a check, receipt of credit, ticket, etc. in a weakened position. What's going on here?

-- Anonymous, November 07, 1998

Answers

I think that on the day of the trial in this case, the defendant offered to return the watch, but the plaintiff refused, thinking he could get the court to make the defendant pay the 300 bucks. After the trial, faced with the prospect of receiving no money for his watch, the plaintiff would most likely have accepted the defendant's offer to reclaim the watch.

-- Anonymous, November 11, 1998

Reponse to Keller..."

I think as well that the plaintiff could probably compel the defendant to return the watch if the latter for some reason changed his mind and refused to do so. The only question would be whether the watch was originally intended as a gift; and I believe we decided in class that it definitely was not.

cheers,

andy

-- Anonymous, November 12, 1998