Moreover, Plaintiff fails to provide any binding legal authority, and the Court is aware of none, to support his argument that acceptance should be imputed to him based upon his purported desire to accept the offer; thus, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive. See Baker v. Boeing Co., C. A. No. 2:18-cv-2574-RMG, 2021 WL 2290692, at *2 (D.S.C. June 4, 2021) (noting “[s]ilence ordinarily does not constitute acceptance” (quoting H.A. Sack Co. v. Forest Beach Pub. Serv. Dist., 250 S.E.2d 340, 341 (S.C. 1978))). Understandably, Plaintiff did not appreciate Goodrich's withdrawal of the offer before he had the chance to accept it.
This is why “[s]ilence ordinarily does not constitute acceptance.” H.A. Sack Co., Inc. v. Forest Beach Pub. Serv. Dist., 250 S.E.2d 340, 341 (S.C. 1978). Indeed, a “contract is an obligation which arises from actual agreement of the parties manifested by words, oral or written, or by conduct.”
164. "One receiving an offer to change a contract to which he is a party is held to be under no obligation to respond to it, and his silence cannot be construed as an acceptance where nothing else is shown." H.A. Sack Co. v. Forest Beach Public Service Dist., 250 S.E.2d 340 (1978); Raysor v. Berkley Co. Ry. & Lumber Co., 2 S.E. 119 (1887); Florence City-Cnty. Airport Comm'n v. Air Terminal Parking Co., 322 S.E.2d 471, 473 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984).
However, respondent contends that appellant's rate is unreasonable. Although a consumer may challenge a rate schedule as being excessive, the person attacking it has the burden to prove the rates are unreasonable. H.A. Sack Co. v.Forest Beach Public Service District, 272 S.C. 235, 250 S.E.2d 340 (1978). We do not believe respondent has carried her burden.
One receiving an offer to change a contract to which he is a party is held to be under no obligation to respond to it, and his silence cannot be construed as an acceptance where nothing else is shown. H.A. Sack Co.v. Forest Beach Public Service District, 272 S.C. 235, 250 S.E.2d 340 (1978); Raysor v. Berkley Co. Ry. Lumber Co., 26 S.C. 610, 2 S.E. 119 (1887). Air Terminal concedes that the parties never mutually agreed or negotiated a reduction in rental fees, but contends the acceptance of the check for less than the monthly lease fee amounted to an acceptance of Air Terminal's offer to modify the lease.