Scoular Company v. Denney case brief summary
151 P.3d 615 (2006)
CASE FACTS
The farmer had made a "firm offer" by agreeing to sell a set amount of bushels, at a set price. The farmer's oral offer to the company could have, if timely accepted, formed the basis of a valid contract. However, a remand for further findings was necessary as to whether the grain company had accepted the farmer's offer. The trial court erred in concluding that the grain company's act in contracting to sell millet to a third party constituted acceptance. The grain company did not immediately pay the farmer as a result of its contract with the third party, and the grain company, which dealt with a great number of farmers and in vast amounts of grain, did nothing in or with the contract with the third party to earmark the farmer's millet as the source of the millet sold there.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials.
151 P.3d 615 (2006)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant farmer appealed from the
judgment of the Phillips County District Court (Colorado), in favor
of plaintiff grain company on the company's breach of contract
action. In a phone call, the farmer had offered to sell millet to the
company at a certain price. The company's general manager told the
farmer only that he could not pay that price at the time, but that he
would work on it and see what he could do.CASE FACTS
The farmer had made a "firm offer" by agreeing to sell a set amount of bushels, at a set price. The farmer's oral offer to the company could have, if timely accepted, formed the basis of a valid contract. However, a remand for further findings was necessary as to whether the grain company had accepted the farmer's offer. The trial court erred in concluding that the grain company's act in contracting to sell millet to a third party constituted acceptance. The grain company did not immediately pay the farmer as a result of its contract with the third party, and the grain company, which dealt with a great number of farmers and in vast amounts of grain, did nothing in or with the contract with the third party to earmark the farmer's millet as the source of the millet sold there.
DISCUSSION
- Because the farmer did not dispute that the purchase contract sufficed as a written confirmation of an agreement, if the grain company accepted the farmer's offer on the day it sent out the purchase contract, there could be no assertion of unreasonable delay in sending out the written confirmation.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment