RakeCo is a landscaper and CondoHome a residential condominium community. In each of the years 2009-2018, the two parties formed a written contract under which CondoHome paid RakeCo $90,000 and RakeCo attended to CondoHome's landscaping during the months of April through October. On February 1, 2019, CondoHome contacts RakeCo:
(1) February 1, CondoHome (by signed writing): We have received no contract for this year. Please assure us that you'll take care of our landscaping this coming spring through fall.
(2) February 4, RakeCo (by signed writing): Yes, of course we will. We have raised our fees by about 3 percent to all customers. In your case, our fee will be $93,000, not $90,000. None of our customers has objected to this modest increase, and we assume you will not object either. We'll be making all of our plans firm on April 1. You'll let us know, of course, if you have any comment. On February 7, CondoHome reads RakeCo's February 4 message and issues no response. On April 2, CondoHome advises RakeCo that for 2019 it has contracted with HoeCo, another landscaper, whose fee was $91,000, and that it will not accept RakeCo's services. RakeCo brings an action against CondoHome, alleging that the parties had formed a contract requiring that CondoHome retain RakeCo as its landscaper for April-October 2019 and pay its $93,000 fee. CondoHome contends that it never accepted RakeCo's February 1 offer, wherefore the parties formed no such contract. If judgment is for RakeCo, the reason will most likely be that
A.RakeCo could sensibly understand that if CondoHome wanted not to accept RakeCo's offer, it would have said so before April 1.
B.RakeCo did not impose the 3 percent fee increase on CondoHome alone, but rather imposed it on all of its customers.
C.CondoHome should reasonably have anticipated that RakeCo might, after ten years, increase its fees.
D.Before contracting with HoeCo, CondoHome owed RakeCo the opportunity to match HoeCo's price.