Why doesn&#39;t Commonwealth law routinely use Acceptee, like Offeror? The Oxford English Dictionary recognizes acceptee. As the jurisprudes here know, Acceptee differs from Offeror, because offers don't have to be accepted. If you want to distinguish an accepted (from an unaccepted) offer, indubitably you must use Acceptee and Acceptor! But BAILII resulted just 3 cases, and AustLII just 29 documents, for Acceptee. Why's Acceptee spurned, but not Offeror? Cited in Akinola v Oyadare &amp; Anor [2020] EWHC 2038 (Ch) (30 July 2020), Chitty on Contracts doesn't mention acceptee, but it mentions acceptor alongside offeree. That basic law is explained in Chitty on Contracts 33rd ed as consolidated with its 1st Supplement at paragraphs 2-001 to 2-003 as follows: &quot;2-001 The first requirement for the formation of a contract is that the parties should have reached agreement. Generally speaking, the law regards an agreement as having been reached when an offer made by one of the parties (the offeror) is accepted by the other to whom the offer is addressed (the offeree or acceptor).
&quot;Acceptee&quot; Is Often Ambiguous The Offeror and Offeree construction, like Lessor and Lessee, always comes in a pair. An act and a response to the act. But, following that logic, the &quot;Acceptor&quot; should be the person who accepts an offer to enter into a contract, and an acceptee should be the person who made the offer, since they receive the acceptance. According to the OED at the link in the OP, the word &quot;Acceptee&quot; has two senses which mean basically opposite things. One sense is synonymous with Acceptor in the quoted language in the OP, and is the person who accepts an offer, but it is confusing because the construction is not parallel to Acceptor. The second sense in the OED is one in which Acceptor is an entity that admits someone to membership (e.g. a college) and Acceptee is the person who is admitted to membership (e.g. a prospective student who decides to attend a college). But this sense isn't naturally applicable to contracts and involves something that isn't litigated. So, the meaning of the word &quot;Acceptee&quot; is often ambiguous in the context of offers and acceptances of proposals to enter into contracts. Early Uses Of Terminology Become Entrenched In Common Law Systems Beyond this, there isn't any profound reason. Neither &quot;Acceptee&quot;, nor any of the other words in question (like Offeror, Offeree, and Acceptor), are used with any regularity in statutes. All of these terms are used principally in the context of case law interpretations of common law contract rights. Common law terminology is prone to strong &quot;founder effects&quot;. Once a term is used once, subsequent courts citing past precedents like to quote exactly from previous court rulings. Often, there is more than one word which would be appropriate to describe a participant in a contract formation process, as you point out, but a court will generally use only one in any given court opinion for clarity's sake. Calling the same person an Offeree in one paragraph of a court opinion, and an Acceptee in another, would frequently be confusing. In part for the substantive reasons, but also just as a matter of random happenstance, &quot;Offeree&quot; came to be used in some of the early opinions rather than Acceptee, and everyone writing court opinions and making legal arguments who followed tended to imitate that early word choice so as to invoke the legal authority of the early precedents. So, one term &quot;went viral&quot; in the common law opinions that cited the early decisions, and another one which would have been equally suitable fell into disuse in legal writing.
I will not speak to your specific situation. I am unfamiliar with the jurisdiction and real estate contracts are one of the most highly regulated contracts so local statutes may override common law. In general, the terms of a contract are what the parties agree; the written document is not the contract - it is evidence of the contract. In a case where the parties agree that the written version is wrong then the written version is wrong. Where the parties disagree that the written version is wrong (or agree that it is wrong but disagree as to how) then each will need to provide evidence to support their position. A signed written contract that supports one parties position is extremely strong evidence! The other party would need to provide some overwhelming evidence to trump this. The general position that the courts take is that the written contract accurately documents the agreement unless someone can prove that it doesn't.
In Australia a person must have ostensible authority as an agent (agency by estoppel) to bind their corporation. If a person claims the authority and a reasonable person would believe in the circumstances that they have the authority then their actions bind the company. See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s769b.html for the law and http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/386390/Contract+Law/Companies+and+perils+of+ostensible+authority+the+danger+of+paying+money+to+a+third+party+and+not+to+the+creditor for a case. To take your example (and putting aside the fact that the purported contract is probably unenforceable in itself), if a reasonable person would conclude you had the authority (in your capacity as director or senior executive) then it would bind McDonalds; if you were a store manager or burger flipper, it wouldn't.
In any sane jurisdiction, the clause would hold. By and large, the legal fiction is that one has read and agreed to execute the entirety of the contracts they signed. If it was otherwise, no contract of substantial length would ever be enforceable upon individuals; yet such contracts are routinely offered and enforced (look at the terms&amp;conditions of any internet website that sells stuff). It is absolutely normal that a phone sale would gloss other minor details of the contract, and implicitly refer to the written text for the finer points. If the specific point had been raised in the phone call, and the salesperson erroneously told you X when in fact the contract read Y, you might have a case, but even then it is not necessarily a strong one (you signed the contract after having called; you might have changed your mind when reading the actual text, and you paying the insurance monthly bill is evidence that you agreed with the contract as-formed). There are some exceptions to that general principle: General conditions of validity of a contract. For instance, in france, a contract must have a &quot;definite and legitimate content&quot;. If we sign a contract for &quot;a few apples against a few euros&quot;, and then I give you five apples, you owe me zero euros because the contract was not specific enough to be enforceable. If the whole contract is unenforceable, the clause falls with it. General conditions of a validity of a clause. Specific clauses can be invalidated without bringing down the whole contract (for instance, &quot;in case X fails to perform their obligations under clause 70Z, Y is allowed to take a pound of flesh from X&quot;). Specific conditions on certain clauses. Consumer laws in some jurisdictions make certain clauses of certain contracts either invalid entirely, or only valid if they were read aloud to the prospective buyer, or only valid in certain forms. (For instance, in France, a sale of real estate between individuals must be notarized.) I would be extremely surprised if the rule in the OP’s example (residence condition to bring another driver on the insurance policy) would fail under any of those.
It isn't uncommon to interlineate contract language, or to cross out contract language, with the initials of the parties to the contract. This is normally only done with smaller businesses, however, where there is someone who has the authority to do so. Some contracts, such as insurance contracts, for example, have to have their language approved by state regulators before they can be used and can't be modified in that fashion.
The question does not say what reasons the other party gives for not paying, and so one cannot judge whether such reason is covered by the terms quoted in the question. In general a contract need not be highly specific if the intent is clear. However, any ambiguity will usually be resolved against the party who wrote the contract, so it is in that party's interest to be as clear and specific as possible. It is not clear from the quoted terms that they form a contract at all. No consideration is stated. Contractual provisions which deny all recourse are not always enforceable. They may be overruled by law or regulation, or by prior court decision or by an equitable decision. If there is a serious problem with the service provided, particularly in a consumer transaction, a court might reject a provision denying all refunds even if it is quite specific and clear. The question does not list the jurisdiction (country and, for federal countries, state or province). Laws on contracts and enforceable terms vary significantly in different jurisdictions. Without this a specific answer is not possible.
There may be violations of consumer protection and/or advertising statutes here by the online store, but the common law position is that: The website's owner is making an invitation to treat Based on that, you are making an offer The contract comes into place when the website's owner accepts your offer. The time of contract formation is "when the parties give objective manifestation of an intent to form the contract." You would need to read the site very carefully, in particular their terms and conditions, acknowledgement page and/or email to see if they are actually accepting your offer or if there are conditions attached. If there is no clear, unconditional acceptance then there is no contract at that time; this applies even if you have paid for the goods. If this is the case (and I strongly suspect that it would be for most online stores), then their acceptance of your offer and the formation of the contract probably does not come into effect until they "give objective manifestation of an intent to form the contract" by shipping the goods. Up until that time there is no contract and their only obligation to you is to promptly refund your money.
You're thinking of &quot;unconscionability.&quot; In the United States, the general rule is that a contract provision will not be deemed unenforceable for unconscionability unless it is both procedurally and substantively unfair. A provision is considered procedurally unfair if it results from some sort of unfair asymmetry in bargaining positions. This could include situations where a party was acting under duress, had a diminished mental capacity, or unequal experience in the . A provision may be considered substantively unfair if it imposes disproportinately unfavorable terms on one party, perhaps by imposing costs far out of line with market prices, or by allocating all risk to that party. If the agreement is not both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, it won't be voided. So the Google TOS may be procedurally unfair because Google's market position gives it disproportionate bargaining power, but because they don't really impose any serious costs on you, they aren't unconscionable. Similarly, a contract provision requiring you to give me your house if you ever forget to turn off the porch lights at night wouldn't be unconscionable if it was agreed to after lengthy negotiations between our lawyers.