Summary of Fairmount Glass works v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1899.
Facts: Plaintiff (P) sent a telegram to defendant (D) asking for the lowest price for ten car loads of Mason green jars. D sent a telegram back on April 23rd stating the prices for “immediate acceptance" . P accepted this offer on same day and sent in the specifications that called for “strictly first quality goods". D responded that it cannot meet P’s order because output is all sold out.
Procedure: Trial court judgment for P.
Issue: Was the telegram sent by D a mere price quotation or a binding offer?
Holding: It was an offer.
Rationale: The telegram sent by D not only quoted the prices, but it also included the term “for immediate acceptance". The use of this term shows that the intent of D to make an offer to P which P can accept and reject. P accepted this offer and that makes it binding for D to fulfill its offer. D’s argument that the use of the term “ten car loads" was too indefinite is not persuasive because in their trade, it is common knowledge that 10 car loads= 1000 gross. Furthermore, D’s argument that P’s specifications that asked for the best quality products were never accepted by D is also not reasonable. D declined to sell to P before D even received these specifications. Therefore the specifications were not the reason why D declined. Judgment for P.