Dustin S. Kolodziej v. James Cheney Mason, 774 F.3d 736

Mason, a defense attorney, made a televised statement during a Dateline interview suggesting a $1,000,000 payout if someone could prove Serrano’s guilt timeline.
Kolodziej, then a law student, saw the edited Dateline version and treated the statement as a serious unilateral-offer to the public.
Kolodziej performed the challenged act in December 2007 and sent Mason a recording plus a demand for payment.
Mason refused to pay, arguing the offer was not serious and not directed to Kolodziej or the public as a binding contract.
Kolodziej sued in federal court; the district court granted summary judgment on lack of knowledge and lack of an offer to him, and the case was ultimately appealed.
Florida law governs the contract claim, requiring offer, acceptance, consideration, and definite terms, with mutual assent as a prerequisite to contract formation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mason’s statements constituted an offer.	Kolodziej argues the edited interview amounted to a unilateral-offer to the public.	Mason contends his remarks were rhetorical/hyperbolic and not a serious offer.	No enforceable offer exists.
Whether Kolodziej accepted by performing the challenged act.	Kolodziej performed the act within 28 minutes and sent proof of performance.	Mason did not knowingly accept or set terms; no contract formed.	No valid acceptance or contract formed.
Whether there was mutual assent to definite terms.	Offer and acceptance were implicit in the performance of the challenge.	Terms were indefinite and unclear; no definite offer or mutual assent.	Lack of definite terms defeats contract formation.
Whether the offer, if any, was directed to Kolodziej or the public at large.	The offer was public and open to anyone who could meet the timeline.	The offer was not a serious, public offer directed to Kolodziej; it lacked seriousness.	Not a valid public offer.

Lucy v. Zehmer, 84 S.E.2d 516 (Va. 1954) (objective standard of assent; words interpreted by reasonable meaning)
Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985) (live appearance offers may create unilateral contracts when terms are clear)
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957) (advertised offers can be binding if clear, definite, and left nothing open)
Tiara Condo. Ass’n v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 607 F.3d 742 (11th Cir. 2010) (mutual assent required to definite terms in contract formation)
Acumen Constr., Inc. v. Neher, 616 So.2d 98 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) (threshold question of contract; offer/acceptance essential)