Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green case brief summary
83 So. 2d 449
SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff company appealed an order from the trial court (Louisiana), finding that defendant homeowners did not breach a contract to re-roof their residence.
OVERVIEW:
-The company alleged that the homeowners' breached a contract to re-roof the homeowners' residence.
-The homeowners alleged that there was no formal acceptance.
-On appeal, from a judgment in the homeowners' favor, the court reversed and awarded damages.
HOLDING:
The court held that there was an offer and an acceptance of the contract by the company. The ability to withdraw the offer was terminated at the time of acceptance.
ANALYSIS:
-The court noted that there was no time limit specified in the contract within which it was to be accepted or within which the work was to be begun.
-Because the contract did not specify the time within which it was to be accepted or within which the work was to have been commenced, a reasonable time must be allowed therefor in accordance with the facts and circumstances and the evident intention of the parties.
-What was a reasonable time depended more or less upon the circumstances surrounding each particular case.
-The court found that the delays to process the homeowners' application were not unusual.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment finding the homeowners did not breach the contract. Damages were awarded in the company's favor.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
83 So. 2d 449
SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff company appealed an order from the trial court (Louisiana), finding that defendant homeowners did not breach a contract to re-roof their residence.
OVERVIEW:
-The company alleged that the homeowners' breached a contract to re-roof the homeowners' residence.
-The homeowners alleged that there was no formal acceptance.
-On appeal, from a judgment in the homeowners' favor, the court reversed and awarded damages.
HOLDING:
The court held that there was an offer and an acceptance of the contract by the company. The ability to withdraw the offer was terminated at the time of acceptance.
ANALYSIS:
-The court noted that there was no time limit specified in the contract within which it was to be accepted or within which the work was to be begun.
-Because the contract did not specify the time within which it was to be accepted or within which the work was to have been commenced, a reasonable time must be allowed therefor in accordance with the facts and circumstances and the evident intention of the parties.
-What was a reasonable time depended more or less upon the circumstances surrounding each particular case.
-The court found that the delays to process the homeowners' application were not unusual.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the judgment finding the homeowners did not breach the contract. Damages were awarded in the company's favor.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment