Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:I would affirm the Decree of the lower Court.
1 believe that Cowen, the plaintiff, in his letter to the defendants dated May 24, 1965, offered to sell his interest in the restaurant when he said (inter alia) : “I would like you and Pete to give serious consideration to acquiring my interest in the restaurant. . . . Therefore, I wish you and Pete would figure out what my share is worth. Any details involved can be worked out in any way that you see fit. . . . You have always been fair to me so I’ll just If me the money end *178up to you and Pete to decide.* ... I shall be awaiting your reply as to what you would like me to do.”
The Chancellor and the Court en banc found that defendant Peter Krasas, who was an unlettered man, accepted this offer by sending plaintiff a check for $2,000, which the lower Court found Krasas deemed “a fair amount to terminate the [partnership] agreement,” and pay for plaintiff’s share of the restaurant business. Contrary to the Majority’s conclusion, I believe that, as a matter of law,** this was an offer and an acceptance, and consequently a completed contract.
Italics, ours.
If any ambiguity existed, no oral evidence was introduced to explain the meaning of this letter and the aforesaid $2,000 payment by defendants. Furthermore, the Chancellor found as a fact as well as a conclusion of law that the parties considered and interpreted and treated these facts, until they subsequently fought, as an offer and an acceptance which plaintiff later sought to evade or repudiate.