Battle of the Forms

A provision of the UCC, as a point of illustration, not necessarily an expression of the governing law in this case (this is not a contract for goods):

Unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language of the offer or the circumstances: An offer to make a contract invites acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable under the circumstances. . . . a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance may . . . create a binding obligation . . .

It has been reported that T. Boone Pickens made this offer:

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens' offer of $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Presuming Pickens did make such an offer to "anyone," his response to John Kerry's acceptance of Pickens' offer seems at material variance to Pickens' original offer. You see, Pickens now is demanding:

Pickens wrote Friday in a letter faxed to Kerry, "I am certainly open to your challenge," but he said he would not pay Kerry unless the senator first provided him with copies of his wartime journals, as well as movies he shot while on patrol and his complete military records for 1971 to 1978.

Obviously only John Kerry could provide such documents. But Pickens' offer was to "anyone." I believe that Pickens has now made John Kerry a second offer for $1 million.

It would be interesting if Kerry also accepted Pickens' second offer. One would expect that Pickens will welch on that one too of course. But it would be fun to watch him squirm.

< Canada Denies Asylum to U.S. Deserters | Taser Death Sparks Uproar in Canada >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Pickens is of that breed who never learns (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by scribe on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 08:59:08 AM EST
    IIRC, about 20 years ago he was on one side of the big Texaco case, in which a handshake deal and contract for the sale of one oil company to another engendered a huge spasm of litigation over when an offer is an offer, and when an offer is accepted.

    More to the point, the members of his school of contract law understanding hew to the view that it isn't a contract until you can prove it in court and, even then, they'll continue saying it isn't even when forced to pay.

    No level of proof will ever be sufficient for Pickens.

    A friend once litigated a suit over a written contract, where the defense testified "It's not a contract, it's an agreement." as the basis for their non-compliance with the contract.  This, notwithstanding the relevant state's jury instruction defining a "contract" as "an agreement between two or more parties...."

    But, seriously, the real point of this Pickens challenge is to revivify the Swift Boat controversy from the last electoral cycle, I suppose to somehow show the Democrats are soft, cowardly and weak. It's of a piece with the "B*tch" comment which the Republicans have so eagerly embraced, the Novak-says-HIlly-has-scandal dirt-on-Obama-and-won't-use-it story and a whole bunch of other base-activating pot-stirring schemes the Rethuglicans are getting rolling right about now.  

    In fact, if anyone would bother to do some real reporting, I'd bet we'd find the grande dame who asked McCain the "b*tch" question is tied in to Rove's operation through multiple relationships.  Not that we'll ever find out who that slag was, but still....

    The nice part about this is that they are doing this a year out from the election.  It truly shows just how desperate they are.

    The bad part is that, Republicans being this desperate, I have no idea where their limits will be.

    Paranoia for breakfast?? (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 09:08:44 AM EST
    In fact, if anyone would bother to do some real reporting

    Some people are paranoid (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 10:45:37 AM EST
    And some people really do have Richard Mellon Scaife funding smear campaigns against them, and a congress spending $65 million trying to pin a nonexistent crime on them.  Some people really do get impeached for stuff that is none of the public's business.

    No member of the public has any reasonable assurance that their phone calls and emails are not monitored or that the people assigned to keep government contractors honest don't have a brother on the board of directors.

    If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention.


    Say what?? (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 03:20:19 PM EST
    The word I have (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    is that the information is not complete.

    I would guess that is information that is referred to in in the 214 and  thus part of the 214.

    No big deal either way. His time on the stage has come and gone.

    Of course we do know that his claims to have spent Christmas '68 in Cambodia are untrue.


    Another material change to the offer (none / 0) (#1)
    by zuzu on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:13:05 PM EST
    Don't forget that Pickens changed his offer in at least one other material way.

    At first he offered the money to anyone who could disprove ANYTHING the SBVT claimed.

    Now he requires that the rebuttal be limited only to their ADS ... in other words, their opinions.

    Why is he unwilling to defend their book? Their press releases, articles and opinion pieces, and media interviews?

    Kerry could have (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    shut everything down if he had provided a copy of his DD214.

    That he has not is a troublesome point.