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.
No edit summary |
m (DeRien moved page Ammons v. Wilson & Co. to Ammons v. Wilson: shorten) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 13:52, July 26, 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.