This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In a letter, Crunden (P) requested a quote from Fairmount (D) for D's lowest price for ten carloads of mason jars. D responded in writing on the 23rd with prices for different sizes of jars 'for immediate acceptance.' P telegraphed an order for ten car loads the next day: 'enter order ten car loads as per your quotation. Specifications mailed.' D replied to P's telegraph the same day indicating that they could not fill the order because they were sold out. D received P's specification on the 25th. It called for 'strictly first quality goods' and the shipment specifications for the first carload of goods with respect to size. P sued D for breach of contract. If an offer was made, D contends that P's reply was not an acceptance of its offer. P contends that its April 24th telegram made a binding contract between P and D. Judgment was given to P and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.