So every week we get two to three of these contract problem answer questions for our seminars. The one from this week is as follows: So my essential inquiry is whether I'm over analysing the entire issue when I say that the terms of "significantly" increased sales are uncertain. I know this whole problem question centers on the notion of unilateral contracts and withdrawal from unilateral contracts, so the bulk of my analysis will revolve around the authority of the Mobil case (the facts here are discernibly analogous to that case on numerous fronts, if they rung a bell )... but I'm also thinking of going down the route of Mobil and saying that there was no offer to begin with, because the term "significantly increased sales" is so unspecific, what's the threshold that's set? But I'm really afraid if I do choose to go down that route, then it would end my response early? When I still have an abundance of issues to discuss with respect to unilateral contracts, acceptance, intention etcetera, so I was thinking that maybe I'm being too analytic of it all. Or should I nonetheless say, "the court will unlikely find that certainty exists and thereby deny the existence of a contract due to the uncertainty ... insert analysis here supporting that premise..." then continue on with the remainder of my analysis and address the other issues anyway? Thanks guys! If you have any general comments on the problem question, don't hesitate! I try to put a lot of thought into these even though they're small homework questions.