White v Corlies and Tift

White v Corlies and Tift - last note from the D constituted...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page: 156 Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Rule: White v. Corlies and Tift Ct of App of NY (1871) Folger P.-(builder) D.- (Merchant) D gave P specifications to do work. P gave estimate to D. D. then made changes to specifications and sent back to P. for approval. P. approved and sent it back to D. D. told P. to begin at once. P. did not reply, but did proceed in purchasing materials. The next day D. countermanded the offer and P. filed suit for breach of contract. In trial ct. the judge instructed the jury that P.’s action on the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: last note from the D constituted a binding contract. The Ct of app held that the trial judge erred in his instruction to the jury, and that the P was required to submit a form of acceptance before the contract was formed. Whether or not a contract existed b/w the 2 parties. A contract did not exist. Reversed and new trial ordered. A mental determination not indicated by speech or put in course of indication by act to the other party, is not an acceptance which will bind the other....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Arizona- Tucson.

Page1 / 2

White v Corlies and Tift - last note from the D constituted...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online