Login

Login

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

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

CONCLUSION

    In the transactions between the parties the defendant was represented by one C. R. Rogers, who carried on negotiations in behalf of the defendant and signed the letters purporting to come from the defendant, and which will be referred to below…. In our discussion of this case we shall assume, without deciding, that Rogers was authorized to represent the defendant in the action which he took…. The question of law, whether these writings constitute a contract…is subject to review by this court…..
    …The application to the facts of the present case makes it necessary that we should disregard the alleged oral agreement which is said to have preceded the written communications that were exchanged between the parties and confine our attention to the writings. There are in this case four writings and upon three of them this controversy must be determined. They set forth with accuracy and precision the transaction between the parties. The oral evidence that was presented is in no way inconsistent with the writings, and if it were the spoken words could not be permitted to prevail over the written. The writings referred to are as follows:
    Poel & Arnold,
    277 Broadway,
    New York, April 2, 1910.
    Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.,
    Long Island City,
    L. I.
    Gentlemen:
    As per telephonic conversation with your Mr. Rogers to-day, this is to confirm having your offer of $ 2.42 per pound for 12 tons Upriver Fine Para Rubber, for shipment either from Brazil or Liverpool, in equal monthly parts January to June, 1911, about which we will let you know upon receipt of our cable reply on Monday morning.

    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following