Schalk Chemical Co. v. R. W. Pridham Co. (1920) · DecisionDepot

Schalk Chemical Co. v. R. W. Pridham Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jul 26, 1920 No. Civ. No. 3455.Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an agreement to supply goods at a set price in excess of a specified quantity was unenforceable for lack of mutuality because the plaintiff was not obligated to purchase any such excess, rendering the offer a unilateral promise without consideration.

Issues

Whether a binding contract existed for the delivery of cartons in excess of the quantity specifically ordered.
Whether an offer to supply goods at a fixed price without a corresponding obligation to purchase is enforceable.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Unless defendant had this right, the contract is a unilateral one, and plaintiff may not recover upon the same.”

“Plaintiff being required to purchase nothing under the letter of February 3, 1915, before quoted, the offer contained therein was without consideration.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment against it in an action for damages for failure to deliver to plaintiff a quantity of pasteboard cartons in accordance, with an alleged contract between the parties. The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of a certain washing-powder packed in pasteboard cartons of different sizes. The defendant is a corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling such cartons.

There is only one question presented by the appeal, and that is as to the existence of a binding contract between the parties for the delivery of the cartons ordered by plaintiff which the defendant refused to deliver. The alleged contract is evidenced by correspondence between the parties which it is necessary for us to consider in some detail. On

[651]

December 3, 1914, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant requesting quotation of prices on cartons. The material part of the letter is as follows: “We would be pleased to.have you submit your bid on 2,010,000 Hydro Pura cartons, basing your estimates on the following specifications and requirements.” Then follows detailed specifications as to size, quality, quantity, etc., of tfiree different types of cartons, and also dates of delivery of each different style.

To this letter defendant replied, on December 23, 1914, as follows:

“We herewith beg to quote you on the following cartons as per specifications attached. These cartons to conform with your request for bids under date of Dee. 3d, and to be as per your samples in every respect.

10M Hydro-Pura display cartons...........$37.50 per M.

900M Large size Hydro-Pura cartons.......... 3.70 “ “

600M Small size Hydro-Pura cartons.......... 1.85 “ “

500M Sample cartons..........:............ 1.00 “ “

“Delivery on above as per your letter of Dec. 3d.”

Plaintiff thereupon, on January 6, 1915, sent to defendant the following letter: “We are in receipt of yours of December 23d in which you quote us prices on Hydro Pura cartons according to number and specifications named in your letter of Dec. 3d.” (Then follows quotation of prices, amounts, etc., in accordance with letter of Dec. 3d.) The letter then continues:

Schalk Chemical Co. v. R. W. Pridham Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

LANGDON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief