Marshall Mfg. Co. v. Berrien Cnty. Package Co.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 108.,108. |
| Citation | 257 N.W. 714,269 Mich. 337 |
| Parties | MARSHALL MFG. CO. v. BERRIEN COUNTY PACKAGE CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by the Marshall Manufacturing Company against the Berrien County Package Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Berrien County; Charles E. White, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Charles W. Gore, of Benton Harbor, for appellant.
Gore, Harvey & Fisher, of Benton Harbor, for appellee.
In July, 1931, after some correspondence, the Berrien County Package Company, of Eau Claire, Mich., defendant, made a purchase of bushel baskets from the Marshall Manufacturing Company, plaintiff. The negotiations culminated in defendant's order requesting the shipment of one carload of ‘tub’ bushels and one carload of ‘round bottom’ bushels, without designation of color. In filling this order, plaintiff called attention to the fact that the ‘tub’ bushels it was sending had a green top hoop and also a red stave, ‘which is standard for us.’ It, however, stated that, if defendant should thereafter prefer plain baskets, without any color, plaintiff could furnish them. The correspondence left no doubt but that, at least in the case of the ‘tub’ bushels, the standard basket had a green top hoop and a red stave.
Subsequently, on Friday, September 11, 1931, at 11:00 a. m. the defendant wired the plaintiff that, if $1.10 was a satisfactory price for baskets delivered at Benton Harbor, it should ship a carload of bent bottom baskets (otherwise known as ‘tub’ bushels), without covers, immediately. The plaintiff thereupon wired in reply that it would ship that day a car of continuous stave tubs, plain hoops, no covers, at the price named. At about 2:30 p. m. of the same day, without awaiting a reply from the Berrien County Package Company, plaintiff proceeded to make shipment. Defendant's officer in charge of the negotiations testified that he left the office shortly after sending the first wire, on Friday morning; that he returned the same day after the office had been closed, and that plaintiff's telegram must have been there at that time, but that he did not see it inasmuch as he came in and went out hurriedly; that he went to Grand Rapids on Saturday, the following day, and did not see the telegram until Monday, upon which he immediately wired plaintiff that defendant would positively and accept the baskets. However, the baskets had already been shipped the previous Friday. Plaintiff claims that it was too late to divert the shipment when defendant's wire was received; that it could not dispose of the baskets when they arrived at Benton Harbor, and that they were finally sent to St. Louis and sold at a loss of $523.20. Plaintiff seeks to recover its loss from defendant in the present action.
The questions presented are whether there was a contract between the parties upon which their minds met, or whether there was simply an offer by defenda...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polhamus v. Roberts.
...States v. Mitchell, 8 Cir., 104 F.2d 343; Canton Cotton Mills v. S. W. Overall Co., 8 Cir., 8 F.2d 807; Marshall Mfg. Co. v. Berrien County Package Co., 269 Mich. 337, 257 N.W. 714; Southern Real Estate & Finance Co. v. Park Drug Co., 344 Mo. 397, 126 S.W.2d 1169; 1 Williston on Contracts, ......
-
Board of Governors of Wayne State University v. Building Systems Housing Corp.
...differs from the offer, the transaction amounts only to a proposal and a counter proposal.' Marshall Manufacturing Co. v. Berrien County Package Co., 269 Mich. 337, 339, 257 N.W. 714, 715 (1934). A proposal to accept an offer which contains terms varying from that of the offer is a rejectio......
-
Giannetti v. Cornillie
...Therefore, the modification was material and their purported acceptance was only a counteroffer. See Marshall Mfg. Co. v. Berrien Co. Package Co., 269 Mich. 337, 339, 257 N.W. 714 (1934) ("The acceptance must be absolute and unconditional, and if conditions are attached or if it differs fro......
-
Yaldo v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.
...or if it differs from the offer, the transaction amounts only to a proposal and a counter-proposal." Marshal Mfg Co v Berrien Co Package Co, 269 Mich 337, 339; 257 NW 714 (1934).Under the principles governing contracts, an acceptance sufficient to create a contract arises where the individu......