- Steiner (P) owned gas station; Mobil (D) agreed to help him buy it and sell him gas.
- Terms: D sends forms to P. Then P fills them out and is very clear that his offer is conditional upon the irrevocability of the discount agreement. (this is the offer). D middle management leaves out irrevocability term; thinks discount is revocable.
- Breach: D tried to stop giving P the price discount a few months into the deal.
- Holding: Court applies UCC §2-207 because offer and acceptance have different terms. The court holds that even though Mobil doesn’t catch the change made by Steiner, the discount provision put in by Steiner and not Mobil’s standard revocable discount provision became part of the agreement. Mobil cannot assert as a defense the failure of its own bureaucracy to respond to, or even fully recognize, Steiner’s efforts to modify the standard Mobil dealer contract.
- What was the offer? Steiner sends Mobil the forms.
- What was the acceptance? Mobil sends Steiner back the forms. Both parties treated this as an acceptance.
- What are the terms? The revocability clause was the major term.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Steiner v. Mobil Oil Corp. case brief
Steiner v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1977); CB 713
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...