|
Fairmount Glass works
v. Crunden-Martin Woodenware Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1899.
Author: Jim
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.
|
