(rejecting the argument that a binding contract arose immediately upon notification of the exercise of a right of first refusal according to the terms of the third-party offer where subsequent negotiations ultimately resulted in modified terms). Accordingly, where the right holder has proffered an alternative or substitute agreement, the issue of whether a right of first refusal has been properly exercised is not whether the right holder properly notified the parties of its intention to enter into a final contract. Merely electing to exercise a first refusal right is not sufficient if a right holder subsequently refuses to timely enter into a contract matching the terms of the third party agreement. See, e.g., Green v. First Am. Bank & Trust, 511 So.2d 569 (Fla.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>) ; Miller v. LeSea Broadcasting, Inc., 87 F.3d
holding the assignment invalid because the assignee never used the mark and never acquired any of the assignors tangible assets or goodwill holding that the defendant had minimum contacts with kansas because it responded to the plaintiffs offer to contract despite the fact that a contract was never formally signed recognizing that a broad definition of stolen is consistent with the guidelines purposes and finding that the enhancement was properly applied where a defendant found a gun that was lost or mislaid by its owner who never authorized anyone to take the gun never sold it and never gave it away as a gift holding that the worker was entitled to full ttd benefits because the employer never made an offer of employment once the worker was released to work holding that the initial attempt to exercise an option was never valid because right holder never intended to match the thirdparty offer as evidenced ip part by his  subsequent refusal to meet the same terms