 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Minneapolis v. Columbus: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Contracts/Mirror image rule) |
m (DeRien moved page Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Columbus Rolling-Mill Co. to Minneapolis v. Columbus: shorten) |
Revision as of 19:49, December 10, 2023
| Minneapolis v. Columbus | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | 119 U.S. 149 |
| Date decided | November 29, 1886 |
Facts
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. = "Minneapolis" = plaintiff = a train company based in Minnesota = a company needing iron for its railways = iron buyer
- Columbus Rolling-Mill Co. = "Columbus" = defendant = an iron manufacturer in Ohio = iron seller
- On December 5, 1879, Minneapolis wrote a letter to Columbus requesting a quote for the price of 2,000 to 5,000 tons of iron rails.
- Columbus offered to sell irons to Minneapolis for $54/ton if such large quantity was needed.
- Subsequently, Columbus became un-responsive to several letters from the buyer Minneapolis.
- Finally, on January 19th 1880, Columbus announced that there was no contract.
- File:Minneapolis v. Columbus (SCOTUS 1886).pngTimeline in late 1879 & Jan. 1880
Procedural History
- Minneapolis sued Columbus in federal district court.
- Minneapolis sought to enforce a December 19th 1879 contract for 2,000 tons of iron rails at $54/ton.
- The trial jury decided in favor of Columbus (iron producer).
Issues
Does an offer have to be accepted according to its exact terms in order to form a binding contract?
Arguments
Columbus contended that there was no contract.
Holding
Yes. An offer must be accepted according to its exact terms in order to form a binding obligation.
Judgment
Affirmed
Resources
.png){kind=link}