Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1919 - Cole McIntyre-Norfleet cons Holloway

Extraits

[...] Cour suprême du Tennessee - Cole McIntyre-Norfleet contre Holloway Facts This case was given by Supreme Court of Tennessee in 1919 and opposes Cole McIntyre, the plaintiff which is a shop keeper, to Holloway the original defendant which is a traveling salesman. On march 26 of 1917, Holloway solicited Cole at his store in Shelby county and got an order for some goods: 50 barrels of meal which had to be ordered before the 31st of July. After this date cent per barrel per month had to be charged by Holloway for storage. [...]

[...] Legal issues We can wonder if the silence kept by the plaintiff in error allows him to claim that there is no contract existing and binding him to the defendant in error: Cole. Is communication of acceptance is necessary to bind both parties? Decision holding The court denied on the plaintiff in error's writ considering that is undoubtedly true that an offer to buy or sell is not binding until its acceptance is communicated to the other party. The acceptance, however of such an offer may be communicated by the other party either by a formal acceptance, or acts amounting to acceptance. [...]

[...] The repudiation of the offer by the plaintiff in error was about 60 days which is quite huge for meat to be used and conserved properly. Moreover judges consider that the plaintiff in error: Holloway could have weekly rejected the contract passed with Cole, the defendant in error and daily only by sending a mail. As the plaintiff in error did not act in a reasonable delay, silence is a form of acceptance, so the contract is perfectly valid. So an unreasonable delay in notifying to the defendant in error his will not to accept the terms of the contract, effects an acceptance of the contract. [...]

[...] We also have another case where judges decided not to consider silence as an acceptance, we can see that in kukuska v home mut. Hail-tornado insurance 1931. it was considered that the rejection of the contract had been made in a reasonable laps of time, and that the farmer could have protected himself against the loss of his crops due to an hail, moreover judges take in consideration all circumstances to decide that communication of rejection of the contract did not bind the insurance company for damages and so that silence does not implies acceptance, it depends from the case. [...]

[...] Moreover this decision, seems to be taken in equity, in effect, the judge considers the fact that the plaintiff in error could have notified his repudiation of the offer daily by letter or even weekly by talking with the defendant in error. So, in my opinion the decision is fair as soon as there was a risk of loss of the meal for the seller due to the silence kept by the buyer. So, in principal, acceptance must be communicated by the buyer to the seller excepted if the sale deals with consumable products, there is no communication of acceptance needed up to a certain length of time. [...]