My background is in English law, though I believe similar broad principles would apply here. IMO, it's plausible to argue it either way, and hard to be certain

My background is in English law, though I believe similar broad principles would apply here. IMO, it's plausible to argue it either way, and hard to be certain without knowing the full details about what was said. Jump seem to have made an offer for the domain, and the $50,000 price could be interpreted as a counteroffer, which would enable Jump to accept and lead to the formation of a contract. However, there must be an intent to enter into legal relations by both sides, and I'm uncertain that Merryman's actions demonstrate this. Further, I'm not sure that stating a price for the domain alone provides sufficient certainty of terms for there to be a valid contract (there is no discussion, for instance, about when the domain is to be transferred or when/how payment is to be made). The details of the initial communication from Jump may be relevant here - say if they invite counteroffers and it is clear they want to enter into a binding contract, or the other details are specified by them and the only part Merryman proposes changing is the price. It's also interesting that "Jump subsequently raised its bid", as this could be seen as an acknowledgement that no contract was formed at the earlier stage.