This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Ammons v. Wilson: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
mNo edit summary |
(Contracts/Course of dealing) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|judgment=Judgment reversed; remanded for jury trial. | |judgment=Judgment reversed; remanded for jury trial. | ||
|reasons=An offeree's failure to reply to an offer acts as acceptance ''if previous dealings'' give the offeror reason to believe the offeree's silence manifests intent. | |reasons=An offeree's failure to reply to an offer acts as acceptance ''if previous dealings'' give the offeror reason to believe the offeree's silence manifests intent. | ||
|rule=[https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-303 Course of Dealing], [[Contracts/Uniform Commercial Code|UCC]] | |rule=[https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-303 Course of Dealing], [[Contracts/Course of dealing]], [[Contracts/Uniform Commercial Code|UCC]] | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ammons-v-wilson-amp-co | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ammons-v-wilson-amp-co | ||
Latest revision as of 19:56, July 31, 2023
| Ammons v. Wilson | |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 170 So. 227; 176 Miss. 645 (Miss. 1936) |
| Date decided | December 7, 1936 |
Facts
Mr. Ammons, a wholesale grocer, ordered 942 cases of shortening at $0.075/pound from Mr. Tweedy, a Wilson & Company ("Wilson") salesman.
Wilson's customers, including Ammons, understood that their orders weren't binding until Wilson had received & accepted them.
Usually, Wilson would fulfill Ammons's order in 7 days. On 1 occasion, Wilson rejected the order of Ammons without informing Ammons until 12 days later. Wilson explained that the price of shortening had risen to $0.09/pound.Procedural History
Ammons sued Wilson for breach of contract.
Ammons lost. The trial court in Mississippi granted Wilson a directed verdict.Issues
Can a party's silence ever make a contract?
Can an offeree's (Wilson) silence & in-action be considered an acceptance of an offer?Holding
Yes. Under appropriate circumstances, an offeree's silence & in-action can be considered an acceptance of an offer.
Judgment
Judgment reversed; remanded for jury trial.
Reasons
An offeree's failure to reply to an offer acts as acceptance if previous dealings give the offeror reason to believe the offeree's silence manifests intent.
