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
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
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. | 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. | |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. | |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. |
Revision as of 12:12, June 17, 2023
Ever-Tite Roofing v. Green | |
Court | Louisiana Court of Appeal |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | November 29, 1955 |
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
Issues
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.