Court ruling | Law homework help

Analyze the issue based on the following criteria:

• Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
• Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
• Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.
• Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
• Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) issued a Request for Bid Proposal for Vending Machine Services for rest areas on high-ways in the state. ATI submitted the lowest bid for the sites. PennDOT selected ATI for a contract for 35 vending sites. Enclosed with the notice of award sent to ATI was a service purchase contract to be executed by ATI, by PennDOT, by the commonwealth comptroller, and by PennDOT’s attorney. Also, “ if required,” signature lines for the Office of General Counsel and the Attorney General’s Office were provided. The award notice indicated that the contract would become effective “ after all approvals have been received from the administrative and fiscal personnel in Harrisburg” and further stated that no activities may be performed until the contract is fully executed. ATI returned an executed contract to PennDOT. PennDOT’s director of the Bureau of Maintenance and Operations and a representative from its legal department executed the agreement. The comptroller and Office of General Counsel subsequently signed the contract; however, the Attorney General’s Office refused to execute the agreement. The Attorney General’s Office subsequently filed criminal charges, related to sales tax issues, against ATI’s president. As a result, the Attorney General’s Office notified PennDOT it would not approve the contract. PennDOT never returned an executed contract to ATI or provided a notice- to- proceed to ATI. Instead, PennDOT notified ATI it would not enter into the con-tract because it determined ATI is not a responsible contractor. ATI filed a complaint alleging PennDOT breached a valid contract. After the hearing, the board determined that PennDOT never delivered an acceptance of the offer to ATI and, as a result, a contract was never formed. ATI appealed, arguing that the board erred in finding a contract did not exist because PennDOT’s representatives, who signed the contract, intended to bind PennDOT to the terms of the con-tract.

How did the court rule on appeal? Did the documents contain a proper acceptance? [Makoroff v. DOT, 938 A. 2d 470 ( Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).]