Finally, with respect to the specific language of the offer rendering buyer's considering Condition #3 "unacceptable" and voiding the offer thereby, this is nothing more than a self-serving characterization on the part of the seller. The fact remains that any right of the seller to reject the buyer's acceptance (or counteroffer, by Seller's earlier argument), ended upon Seller's de facto acceptance of the deposit payment as tendered.

Having failed to vitiate the obligations under contract by virtue of any variance between the specific mode of payment, the seller will argue that he revoked the offer on March 11th after the buyer tendered the deposit but before the buyer could have satisfied the second condition of the offer. Since the offer was revoked by Seller before all of the conditions specified in the offer could have been accepted by Buyer in the office of Anderson on March 14th, Seller will argue that Buyer could no longer accept, on March

14 th, an offer that was revoked on March 11th. but, as the Florida court in Kendel reiterated a rule expressed in the earlier Morrison case, (1963), "The right to withdraw and repudiate the acceptance of an offer is dependent on the initial determination of when that acceptance is effective and irrevocable."

In this case, Condition #3 of the terms of the offer was accepted by Seller's acceptance of the deposit by virtue of depositing it upon receipt. If the buyer appeared at the offices of Anderson on the date and time specified in Condition #2 and tendered the rest of the payment specified in Condition...

However, if the buyer showed up substantially later than the specified time of 12:00 PM, then the Court is likely to recognize the seller's right to reject that acceptance for lack of timeliness with respect to Condition #2.
Naturally, Buyer will counter that according to the rule expressed in Hatalowich, tendering the final element of acceptance as specified in Conditions #1 and 2 on the afternoon of the date specified was functionally equivalent to doing the same at precisely

12:00 PM. The Court is likely to decide this particular issue based on whether the variance from the stated condition was material or immaterial in the nature of the variance in either Hatalowich, or in the nature of the variance in this case in relation to Condition #3, pertaining to the mode of payment for the deposit.

If the buyer appeared within a time frame deemed by the Court to constitute approximately" 12:00 PM, it will likely rule in favor of the buyer; if the buyer appeared several hours after the specified time, the Court will likely find that a seller may specify a time frame for acceptance and that the seller could even have specified a more precise time, such as "no earlier than 12:00 PM but no later than 12:15 PM." (the fact pattern does not provide the time of Buyer's final tender of payment.) Since a literal definition of "12:00 PM" is the time in-between 11:59:59 AM and 12:00:01 PM, it is left to the Court to decide whether the actual time of the buyer's appearance was functionally…