Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Minar v. Skoog, 50 N.W.2d 300.

29 citing documents.

BDS Laundry Management Company, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Richard J. Hartfiel v. Raymond Wilburn Allison, T. J. Potter Trucking, Inc., Westfield Insurance Company, intervenor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
comply exactly with the requirements of the offer.’” Jacobs v. Cable Constructors, Inc., (alteration in original) (quoting Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265, ).
Jacobs v. Cable Constructors, Inc. 704 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Jacobs v. Cable Constructors, Inc. 704 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
comply exactly with the requirements of the offer.” Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265 , (emphasis in original), Rose v. Guerdon Indus., Inc.
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 689 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2004
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 689 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2004
Dyrdal argues that the notice of sale must be made with “exactitude” as to all sale terms, citing our decision in Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Dyrdal v. Golden Nuggets, Inc. 672 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Relying on Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265 , Dyrdal argues, however, that the purchase agreement did not constitute adequate notice of the proposed sale because it was not signed.
Abrahamson v. Abrahamson 613 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Abrahamson v. Abrahamson 613 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
To give rise to a binding contract, the acceptance must “comply exactly with the requirements of the offer.” Rose v. Guerdon Indus., Inc., (quoting Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265-66 , ).
Gresser v. Hotzler 604 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Gresser v. Hotzler 604 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(citing Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265 , (holding acceptance must comply exactly with terms of the offer)).
Hough v. Harvey 410 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hough v. Harvey 410 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Haugland, v. Canton, 250 Minn. 245, 248 , Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265
Real Estate Dynamics, Inc. v. Richards 392 N.W.2d 250 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Real Estate Dynamics, Inc. v. Richards 392 N.W.2d 250 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265-66 , (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted) (quoted by Rose v. Guerdon Industries, Inc., ).
Rose v. Guerdon Industries, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Rose v. Guerdon Industries, Inc. 374 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265-66 , (emphasis in original) (footnotes omitted).
PARK-LAKE CAR WASH, INC. v. Springer 352 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1984
PARK-LAKE CAR WASH, INC. v. Springer 352 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1984
Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262
Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium 281 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1979
Betlach v. Wayzata Condominium 281 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1979
Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262
Kastner v. Dalton Development, Inc. 122 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1963
Kastner v. Dalton Development, Inc. 122 N.W.2d 183 Minn. 1963
To be effectual, however, election by an optionee to exercise the option must be unequivocal, Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262 , 50 N. W. (2d) 300 , unambiguous, Downer v. Buehrle, 90 Cal.
Haugland v. Canton 84 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1957
Haugland v. Canton 84 N.W.2d 274 Minn. 1957
4 Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262 , 50 N. W. (2d) 300 ; Lewis v. Johnson, 123 Minn. 409 , , L. R. A. 1915D, 150; Kileen v. Kennedy, 90 Minn. 414 , ; Langellier v. Schaefer, 36 Minn. 361 , .
Markmann v. H. A. Bruntjen Co. 81 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1957
Markmann v. H. A. Bruntjen Co. 81 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1957
This court held in the recent case of Minar v. Skoog, 235 Minn. 262, 265 , 50 N. W. (2d) 300, 302 , that: “An acceptance, to be valid and to give rise to a binding contract, must be made in unequivocal and positive terms which comply exactly with the requirements of the offer.