Abstract
This article is prepared primarily as a resource for students, educators and (possibly) practitioners of contract law. It is hoped that it will bridge the gap between the conventional offer and acceptance model (and its derivative, the last shot doctrine) and the practical manner in which commercial contracts tend to be formed in the real world. The complexities of contract formation are explored by examining three traditional contracting patterns and identifying the suitability of the offer and acceptance model to each of these patterns. As a byproduct of the offer and acceptance model, the last shot doctrine is often deployed to resolve the battle of the forms disputes. This article critiques the viability of the last shot doctrine and discusses why the holistic approach is superior to it. The article also situates the equivalence, in substance, between the holistic approach and the 'least cost avoider' principle commonly used by economist lawyers in tort law and the law of accidents. This article ultimately seeks to provide a clearer and more pragmatic framework for navigating the complexities of contract formation in contemporary commercial practice.