This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Ever-Tite Roofing v. Green: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Louisiana Court of Appeal |date=November 29, 1955 |subject=Contracts/Outline |case_treatment=No |facts=Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. ("Ever-Tite") & Mr G...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=Louisiana Court of Appeal | |court=Louisiana Court of Appeal | ||
|date= | |date=1955-11-29 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. ("Ever-Tite") & Mr Green ("Green") discussed replacing the roof on Green's residence in [https://www.websterparishla.org/index.html Webster Parish], Louisiana. | |||
|facts=Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. ("Ever-Tite") & Mr Green ("Green") discussed replacing the roof on Green's residence in Webster Parish, Louisiana. | |||
On June 10th 1953, Green signed a document specifying the roofing work. The Ever-Tite sales representative wasn't authorize to accept the contract on behalf of Ever-Tite. | On June 10th 1953, Green signed a document specifying the roofing work. The Ever-Tite sales representative wasn't authorize to accept the contract on behalf of Ever-Tite. | ||
| Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
Green refused to allow Ever-Tite employee to work on his roof. | Green refused to allow Ever-Tite employee to work on his roof. | ||
|procedural_history=Ever-Tite filed a lawsuit against Green for breach of contract. Ever-Tite lost in the trial court. | |procedural_history=Ever-Tite filed a lawsuit against Green for breach of contract. Ever-Tite lost in the trial court. | ||
|issues=Does beginning '''performance''' constitute '''acceptance''' for a contract that permits acceptance of the offer via performance? | |||
|arguments=Ever-Tite argued calling up the roofing crew, loading the trucks, and driving towards Green's residence started '''performance'''. | |||
|holding=Yes. Initiating performance qualifies as acceptance. | |||
However, Green had notified Ever-Tite about withdrawal of the contract before the other roofing company commenced work & Ever-Tite arrived at Green's residence. | |||
The Court sided with Ever-Tite at the end. Green was ordered to pay $311 in money damages. | |||
|reasons=Ever-Tite's attempted performance operated as acceptance of the contract. Green signed the document. Subsequently, Ever-Tite could indicate acceptance by (1) an authorized signature or (2) performance. | |||
|comments=Ever-Tite only received notice of Green's withdrawal upon arriving at Green's home after having shipped roofing materials for 40 miles. So, the judges had different opinion's as to when Ever-Tite's roofing performance actually began. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/ever-tite-roofing-corporation-v-green | |link=https://casetext.com/case/ever-tite-roofing-corporation-v-green | ||
| Line 20: | Line 28: | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ever-tite-roofing-corp-v-green | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/ever-tite-roofing-corp-v-green | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-ever-tite-roofing-corp-v-green | |link=https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-ever-tite-roofing-corp-v-green | ||
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
| Ever-Tite Roofing v. Green | |
| Court | Louisiana Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | 1955-11-29 |
Facts
Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. ("Ever-Tite") & Mr Green ("Green") discussed replacing the roof on Green's residence in Webster Parish, Louisiana.
On June 10th 1953, Green signed a document specifying the roofing work. The Ever-Tite sales representative wasn't authorize to accept the contract on behalf of Ever-Tite.
Ever-Tite arranged financing for Green's roofing work since Green wasn't paying up-front.
A week later, Ever-Tite crew drove from Shreveport, Louisiana to Green's residence whereupon Ever-Tite discovered another roofing company in the midst of completing the roofing work.
Green refused to allow Ever-Tite employee to work on his roof.Procedural History
Ever-Tite filed a lawsuit against Green for breach of contract. Ever-Tite lost in the trial court.
Issues
Does beginning performance constitute acceptance for a contract that permits acceptance of the offer via performance?
Arguments
Ever-Tite argued calling up the roofing crew, loading the trucks, and driving towards Green's residence started performance.
Holding
Yes. Initiating performance qualifies as acceptance.
However, Green had notified Ever-Tite about withdrawal of the contract before the other roofing company commenced work & Ever-Tite arrived at Green's residence.
The Court sided with Ever-Tite at the end. Green was ordered to pay $311 in money damages.Reasons
Ever-Tite's attempted performance operated as acceptance of the contract. Green signed the document. Subsequently, Ever-Tite could indicate acceptance by (1) an authorized signature or (2) performance.
Comments
Ever-Tite only received notice of Green's withdrawal upon arriving at Green's home after having shipped roofing materials for 40 miles. So, the judges had different opinion's as to when Ever-Tite's roofing performance actually began.
