To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Fairmount Glass Works v. Cruden-Martin Woodenware Co.

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast "What you need to know"

CaseCast –  "What you need to know"

Fairmount Glass Works v. Cruden-Martin Woodenware Co.

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant requested letter requesting price and terms for sale of Mason jars from defendant Plaintiff. Plaintiff sent response quoting price and discount for cash but also stating that quotation and contracts were subject to contingencies, delays or accidents beyond its control. Defendant sent order per the quoted price but Plaintiff responded that it was not possible to book order.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Court will examine the meaning of communication between the parties to determine the intention of the parties.

Plaintiff’s quotation letter stated that contracts were subject to contingencies of agencies, transportation delays or accidents beyond our control.
Plaintiff’s rejection of Defendant’s order stated “Output all sold. See letter.”

Issue. Was Plaintiff’s letter an offer that empowered Defendant to bind a contract for sale of the jars by its acceptance through the telegram order?

Held. The expression “for immediate acceptance” taken in connection with the quotation of the price and terms detailing a shipment deadline were evidence of an offer to sell on the terms indicated and if accepted immediately would form and close a contract. Facts made it more than quotation of prices, and according to the circumstances and offer to sell.

Discussion. Although the letter stated “We quote you

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following