CT · jury_instructions

Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 4.1-14

Manner of Acceptance of an Option Contract

activein force · 2008-01-01 – presentas-observed

The (offeree: defendant / plaintiff)1 claims that on <date> (he/she/it) accepted the offer of the

(offeror: defendant / plaintiff) under the option contract to <describe contract if necessary>. The

(offeror: defendant / plaintiff) claims that the (offeree: defendant / plaintiff) did not accept the

offer on <date set forth in option contract> because the (offeror: defendant / plaintiff) did not

receive the acceptance until <later date>. If you find that the (offeror: defendant / plaintiff) did

receive the (offeree: defendant's / plaintiff's) acceptance of the option offer on or before

<date set forth in option contract>, then the acceptance was effective. If you find that the

(offeror: defendant / plaintiff) did not receive the acceptance of the option offer until <later

date>, then the acceptance was not effective.

1 The term "offeror" and "offeree" have been inserted above as a guide. The charge should be

given in terms of the "plaintiff" or the "defendant," depending on which one is the offeror and

which one the offeree.

Provenance

Source: jud.ct.gov
Retrieved: 2026-08-23
Edition: 2026-08-23
Content hash: ee820ce46569e976bed3b5518ac158a802d283997c5a4127973061aea5fbed3c

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs