Login

Login

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

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

CONCLUSION

That being so, this letter from the defendant some months later disavowing the authority of the salesman who sent the order cannot supply the omission of the plaintiffs to accept the offer which the defendant’s salesman made. If we limit our consideration to the writings it is plain that there was no contract because the offer of the defendant was not accepted. …
….
74 Law Masters Series
The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
UCC’s View on the “Mirror Image Rule”
Dorton considers the UCC’s version of the mirror image rule and compares it to traditional contract law doctrine. The court describes the differences in the following way:
Under the common law, an acceptance or a confirmation which contained terms additional to or different from those of the offer or oral agreement constituted a rejection of the offer or agreement and thus became a counter-offer. The terms of the counter-offer were said to have been accepted by the original offeror when he proceeded to perform under the contract without objecting to the counter-offer. Thus, a buyer was deemed to have accepted the seller’s counter-offer if he took receipt of the goods and paid for them without objection.
Under Section 2-207 the result is different. This section of the Code recognizes that in current commercial transactions, the terms of the offer and those of the acceptance will seldom be identical. Rather, under the current “battle of the forms,” each party typically has a printed form drafted by his attorney and containing as many terms as could be envisioned to favor that party in his sales transactions.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following