Antonacopoulos v. Arax Grocery Co.
| Decision Date | 25 November 1919 |
| Citation | 125 N.E. 161,234 Mass. 125 |
| Parties | ANTONACOPOULOS v. ARAX GROCERY CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Franklin G. Fessenden, Judge.
Action of contract by Peter S. Antonacopoulos against the Arax Grocery Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
John H. Casey and Frederic J. Muldoon, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
James E. Kelley and Jacob K. Tertzag, both of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of contract to recover damages for the failure to deliver 800 bags of rice. There was evidence from which the jury could have found that on or about March 2, 1917, the parties entered into an oral contract by the terms of which the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendant 800 bags of rice at $4.37 1/2 a bag, and that the defendant agreed to deliver the rice in Boston within a reasonable time; that the next day the plaintiff gave to the defendant's agent a check for $300, which was accepted in part payment, and at the same time the agent delivered to the plaintiff a writing of the tenor following:
‘Dear Sir: We confirm your order of 800 bags of polished blue rose rice at $4.37 1/2 upon arrival of car f. o. b. Boston.
‘M. H. Ajamian.’
[1] The defendant contends that the writing so given to the plaintiff shows that the delivery was conditional upon the arrival of the car in Boston, and that as there was no evidence that the car had arrived at the date of the plaintiff's writ the trial judge should have directed a verdict for the defendant. The above-quoted memorandum was not signed by the plaintiff and he was not bound by it if the jury found, as they were warranted in finding upon the evidence, that it was delivered to him after a completed, unconditional, oral contract for the sale of the rice had been consummated by the parties, which was not afterward rescinded or modified.
[2] Whether the contract was oral, or was expressed in the memorandum, was a question of fact to be determined by the jury under appropriate instructions, and the record recites that:
‘Full and particular instructions were given to the jury as to what was necessary for the making of a contract, as to the necessity of the meeting of the minds of the parties in all the essential elements of a contract and as to any modifications thereof to which no exceptions were taken.’
If the jury found that the parties made a complete oral contract which was not subsequently modified, it was the duty of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lander v. Samuel Heller Leather Co.
... ... National ... Coal Tar Co. v. Malden & Melrose Gas Light Co. 189 Mass ... 234 ... Antonacopoulos v. Arax Grocery Co. Inc. 234 ... Mass. 125. Clark v. Henshaw Motor Co. 246 Mass. 386 ... C ... & ... ...
-
Sacks v. Martin Equipment Corp.
...262 Mass. 39, 40, 159 N.E. 524; Maryatt v. Hubbard, 33 Wash.2d 325, 205 P.2d 623, 8 A.L.R.2d 251. Compare Antonacopoulos v. Arax Grocery Co., Inc., 234 Mass. 125, 125 N.E. 161. It has been held that an agent who solicits orders and sends them to his principal to be filled has no implied aut......
-
Boston Food Products Co. v. Wilson & Co.
...31, and the evidence showed that about that time the market value was approximately twenty cents a pound. See Antonacopoulos v. Arax Grocery Co., 234 Mass. 125, 125 N. E. 161. There was evidence tending to show that Heyer had authority to make the contract in question. He was manager of the......
-
Goodell v. Sviokcla
...Mass. 244, 245, 51 N. E. 1088;Hall v. Wakefield & Stoneham Street Railway, 178 Mass. 98, 100, 59 N. E. 668;Antonacopoulos v. Arax Grocery Co., Inc., 234 Mass. 125, 128, 125 N. E. 161. [2] If, however, it be assumed in favor of the defendant that the case can be considered on its merits, the......