the majority that the solicitation did not constitute an offer. Plaintiff argues that California law governs the parties’ agreement. But even under California law, "[a]n offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it." Donovan v. RRL Corp., 26 Cal.4th 261, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 807, 27 P.3d 702, 709 (2001) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the solicitation made it clear that sending in the application did not, by itself, consummate the agreement. The solicitation listed a number of contingencíes under which Plaintiff's application could be rejected. See Lopez v. Charles Schwab & Co., 118 Cal.App.4th 1224, 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 544 (2004) (<HOLDING>). In addition, because I too would hold that
holding that fathers investment account with stock brokerage firm was not a multipleparty account available for payment of child support holding that the map a seller supplied to a broker at the time the brokerage contract was signed was intended by the parties to constitute the legal description in the brokerage contract holding that an application containing the statement i hereby request that the defendant open a brokerage account did not create an enforceable contract holding that the medicaid statute did not create an enforceable cause of action against a private health care facility holding unenforceable a real estate contract that provided for the payment of brokerage fees to an unlicensed corporation