Konic International Corporation v. Spokane Computer Services, Inc.
case brief summary
708 P.2d 932 (1985)
CASE FACTS
One of the buyer's representatives spoke to the seller about purchasing a surge protector. The representative had priced units, getting prices from $ 50 to $ 200. The seller offered to sell a unit for $ 5,620, which the representative misinterpreted as $ 56.20. The representative worked up a purchase order for $ 56.20, and placed an order with the seller. The unit was installed while the buyer's president was on vacation. When the president returned from vacation, he immediately ordered that power to the equipment be turned off because the surge protector was obviously worth more than $ 56.20. The president contacted the seller to have them pick up the protector, but the seller refused and brought suit for the purchase price.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting judgment for the buyer.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials
.
708 P.2d 932 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff seller sought review of the
decision of the District Court of the First Judicial District
(Idaho), which affirmed the magistrate's decision granting judgment
for defendant buyer in the seller's breach of contract lawsuit for
the alleged sale of goods.CASE FACTS
One of the buyer's representatives spoke to the seller about purchasing a surge protector. The representative had priced units, getting prices from $ 50 to $ 200. The seller offered to sell a unit for $ 5,620, which the representative misinterpreted as $ 56.20. The representative worked up a purchase order for $ 56.20, and placed an order with the seller. The unit was installed while the buyer's president was on vacation. When the president returned from vacation, he immediately ordered that power to the equipment be turned off because the surge protector was obviously worth more than $ 56.20. The president contacted the seller to have them pick up the protector, but the seller refused and brought suit for the purchase price.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting judgment for the buyer.
- The court held that there was no sales contract because the parties had a material mutual misunderstanding and any agreement that they thought they had reached was merely an illusion.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting judgment for the buyer.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment