Cable Co v. Hancock

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: POWELL, J
• Citation: Cable Co v. Hancock, 58 S.E. 319, 2 Ga.App. 73 (Ga. App. 1907)
• Decision Date: 24 May 1907
• Docket Number: (No. 317.)
• Parties: CABLE CO. v. HANCOCK.

58 S.E. 319

(2 Ga.App. 73)

CABLE CO.

v.HANCOCK.

(No. 317.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 24, 1907.

1. Sam—Offer to Purchase—Approval.

If a traveling salesman, who has no authority to close a sale, takes from a prospective purchaser a written contract agreeing to buy an article on named terms and conditions, but by stipulations in the writing the contract is subject to the approval of the agent's principal, the writing amounts to a mere offer, and is unilateral, until the approval contemplated has been duly made.

[Ed. Note.—For cases In point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 43, Sales, § 46.]

2. Frauds, Statute of—Contract—Approval in Writing.

In such a case, if the contract relates to "goods, wares or merchandise to the amount of $50 or more, " and is therefore within the purview of the statute of frauds, the approval contemplated must be in writing before the contract becomes mutual.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, Frauds, Statute of. § 195.]

8. Sales—Offer to Purchase—Withdrawal.

In such a case the offer may be withdrawn at any time before the contract becomes mutual.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Die. vol. 43, Sales, § 45.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Athens; Howell Cobb. Judge.

Action by the Cable Company against A. C. Hancock. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

The plaintiff's traveling salesman induced the defendant to buy a piano, but the salesman did not have the authority to make a binding contract of sale. He took, however, a written instrument, signed by the defendant, reciting that the plaintiff had agreed to sell him a described piano for a given sum, to be paid at a named date in the future; the condition being annexed that the title should remain in the seller until paid for. It was expressly recited, however, that the contract was subject to the approval of the plaintiff. The piano was already in the defendant's custody, having been previously left with him on trial. The salesman carried the contract at once to the plaintiff's office, and turned it over to the manager in charge, who stated that it was satisfactory; that the company would accept it The contract was then de--livered to the bookkeeper, who entered It on the books. Afterwards, on the same day, the defendant by telephone told the plaintiff's manager, at its office, that he had decided to cancel the order. The manager replied that he had already placed the contract on the books, and that he could not accept a cancellation. No written approval or acceptance of the contract was shown. The defendant tendered back the piano, refusing to recognize the contract. The plaintiff sued on the contract. The piano was worth more than $50. The trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted.

Jno. J. Strickland and Thos. F. Green, for plaintiff in error.

Erwin & Erwin, for defendant in error.

POWELL, J. (after stating the foregoing facts). The usual and implicit power of a traveling salesman is merely to take orders, offers to buy, and not to make completed contracts of sale. Such was the fact in this case. Even in the absence of a condition in the written instrument itself requiring approval or acceptance by the principal, the law would have implied such a condition in the transaction. The writing (although in form, save only for the clause requiring approval, a binding contract) needed something to make it complete, viz., the acceptance of its terms...