In Foster v. Hanni (Alaska 1992) 841 P.2d 164, the Court reversed a grant of summary judgment for the holders of a right of first refusal (ROFR), concluding genuine issues of material fact existed with regard to such matters as whether the holder was estopped to assert its right, or was ready and willing to perform. As a preliminary matter, the court briefly considered whether a change in the terms of the third party offer was significant enough to require resubmission to the holder of the ROFR. (Id. at p. 170.) The third party offer in Foster was originally for $ 115,000 in cash, but was later modified to include long-term seller financing, with a down payment of only $ 30,000. (Id. at pp. 166-167, 170-171.) The court concluded that modification "made the second offer substantially more attractive to a potential buyer than the first offer." (Id. at p. 171.)