Porter v. Gossell
Decision Date | 13 April 1914 |
Docket Number | 255 |
Citation | 166 S.W. 533,112 Ark. 380 |
Parties | PORTER v. GOSSELL |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulk, Judge reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.
Mehaffy Reid & Mehaffy, for appellant.
The correspondence passing in this case did not constitute a contract, because there was no meeting of the minds of the parties, which is an essential element. Elliott on Contracts Vol. 1, p. 25; 113 S.W. 703; 18 N.W. 172; 101 U.S. 822; 134 S.W. 942; 54 P. 101; 130 S.W. 541.
Mann & Shofner, for appellees.
The order of appellant was accepted as made. "If an offer is accepted as made the acceptance is not conditional and does not vary from the offer because of inquiries whether the offerer will change his terms, or as to future acts for the expression of hope or suggestion, etc." 9 Cyc. 269; 61 N.W. 384 (Iowa); 66 P. 1033 (Kan.); 88 Ark. 363; 46 Ark. 129; 98 Ark. 421.
Appellee instituted this action below against appellant to recover damages resulting from appellant's failure or refusal to perform his alleged contract whereby he sold and undertook to deliver to appellee a carload of oats.
The case was tried before the court sitting as a jury, and the only question we have to determine is whether the testimony, viewing it in the light most favorable to appellee, is sufficient to sustain the finding of the court.
Appellant resided at Stuttgart, Arkansas, and appellee at Little Rock, the negotiations between the parties being conducted entirely by letters and telegrams.
A contract may be entered into by that method and all of the correspondence may be read together for the purpose of establishing the contract. Mann v. Urquhart, 89 Ark. 239, 116 S.W. 219.
"When parties conduct a negotiation through the mail," said this court in Kempner v. Cohn, 47 Ark. 519, 1 S.W. 869, "a contract is completed the moment a letter accepting the offer is mailed, provided it be done with due diligence after receipt of the letter containing the proposal and before any intimation is received that the offer is withdrawn.
Appellant was engaged in the business of selling hay and lumber, and the negotiations between him and appellee concerning the sale of the oats grew out of correspondence about the sale of hay.
The first communication on the subject was that of appellee in a letter dated June 23, 1911, concerning the purchase of hay, and adding the following inquiry about purchase of a carload of oats:
Appellant replied by letter on the same day as follows:
That letter constituted a proposal to enter into a contract with respect to the sale of a carload of oats at the price and terms therein named. Appellee replied on June 26 as follows:
It will be observed that this letter did not constitute an unconditional acceptance and was not so regarded by appellee. He stated the condition that if the oats quoted were of a certain grade and the weights were guaranteed at destination, he would purchase a car at forty-two cents. The letter shows that he did not intend it as an acceptance of appellant's offer, but intended it as a counter proposition, for he requested an immediate response by letter or wire from appellant, indicating whether the latter was willing to accede to those terms. The negotiations had not then proceeded to a contract, for the minds of the parties had not yet met.
In Emerson v. Stevens Gro. Co., 95 Ark. 421, 130 S.W. 541, we said:
See, also, Cage v. Black, 97 Ark. 613, 134 S.W. 942, announcing the same principle.
Appellant replied to the last letter above named on June 28, as follows:
Now inasmuch as appellee had not accepted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mantle Lamp Company v. Read
... ... 261, 92 S.W. 783; Mann v ... Urquhart, 89 Ark. 239, 116 S.W. 219; ... Emerson v. Stevens Gro. Co., 95 Ark. 421, ... 130 S.W. 541; Porter v. Gossell, 112 Ark ... 380, 166 S.W. 533. The letter of proposal written by ... appellant's manager, upon which the order of Read for the ... ...
-
Jerome Hardwood Lumber Company v. Davis Brothers Lumber Co., Ltd
...and never became binding. The acceptance of an offer must be in accordance with the terms of the offer. 23 R. C. L. 1284; 35 Cyc. 53; 112 Ark. 380; 97 Ark. 613; 90 Ark. 131; 107 224; 25 Ark. 545. There was no evidence that the contract was signed by any person authorized to bind appellant. ......
-
Wilson v. Spry
... ... Black, 97 ... Ark. 613, 134 S.W. 942; see also, Kempner v ... Cohn, 47 Ark. 519, 1 S.W. 869; Skeen v ... Ellis, 105 Ark. 513; Porter v ... Gossell, 112 Ark. 380, 166 S.W. 533. The acceptance ... of Wilson's offer by Spry converted the offer into a ... binding contract. 6 R ... ...
-
Allen v. Nothern
... ... the terms of the sale has been made and also an acceptance ... thereof in accordance with such terms." To the same ... effect see Porter v. Gossell, 112 Ark. 380, ... 166 S.W. 533 ... In the ... application of the rule it is evident that the letters did ... not ... ...