## Facts

- Irwin Schiff publicly promoted the view that federal income tax is voluntary and appeared on a live CBS call-in program, *News Nightwatch*, on February 7, 1983.
- During the live broadcast, the program displayed call-in instructions and invited viewers to call and speak with Schiff on the air.
- Schiff stated, in substance, that if anyone “calls this show” and cites a provision of the Internal Revenue Code requiring an individual to file a tax return, he would pay $100,000.
- The next morning, CBS rebroadcast a recorded segment of Schiff’s appearance on *CBS Morning News*.
- John A. Newman, a lawyer, did not watch the live broadcast; he watched the rebroadcast, then called the station, cited Code provisions he believed satisfied the challenge, and demanded the $100,000.
- Schiff refused to pay, and Newman sued for breach of contract, alleging a unilateral public-offer contract formed by his performance.
- The district court entered judgment for Schiff, concluding Newman’s purported acceptance was not timely; Newman appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Schiff’s on-air $100,000 challenge constituted an offer that remained open for acceptance after the live call-in broadcast ended.
2. Whether a later televised rebroadcast of the challenge renewed or extended the offer so that Newman could accept by calling after viewing the rebroadcast.
3. Whether Newman’s post-rebroadcast call was a timely and effective acceptance sufficient to form an enforceable unilateral contract.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed judgment for Schiff.
- The court held that, objectively interpreted in context, the offer was limited to the live *Nightwatch* broadcast and to callers who called the show while it was on the air.
- The court held the *Morning News* rebroadcast was a report of what was said on the earlier program, not a renewal or continuation of the offer.
- Because the offer lapsed when the live broadcast ended, Newman’s attempted acceptance after viewing the rebroadcast was ineffective.
- The court rejected the argument that Schiff’s later conduct or correspondence ratified or renewed the offer.

## Legal Principles

- Contract formation turns on objective manifestations of assent; an offer’s meaning, method of acceptance, and duration are determined by how a reasonable person would understand the words and surrounding circumstances.
- A public reward-type offer may validly restrict acceptance to a specified time and manner; acceptance outside those terms is ineffective.
- An offer tied to a particular event or time period lapses when that event ends, absent objective evidence of extension or renewal.
- A rebroadcast or news-style repetition of a prior statement does not, without more, communicate a new present willingness to contract.

## Conclusion

The court held that Schiff’s televised $100,000 challenge was limited to live callers during the call-in program and expired when the broadcast ended; the next-day rebroadcast did not renew the offer, so Newman’s later call could not create a contract.


Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)