 |
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.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=November 29, 1886 |subject=Contracts |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minneapolis-amp-st-louis-railway-co-v-columbus-rolling-mill-co |source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/119/149 |case_text_source=Cornell Law School }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case T...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Added timeline) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=Supreme Court of the United States | |court=Supreme Court of the United States | ||
|citation=119 U.S. 149 | |||
|date=November 29, 1886 | |date=November 29, 1886 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|other_subjects=Business Associations | |||
|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. | |||
*'''Timeline''': | |||
{{Timeline | |||
|quote requested<br />by Minneapolis | |||
|Dec. 5 | |||
|Dec. 8 | |||
|$54/ton<br />quote provided<br />by Columbus | |||
|order placed for<br />1,200 tons | |||
|Dec. 16 | |||
|Dec. 18 | |||
|order canceled<br />for 1,200 tons | |||
|order placed for<br />2,000 tons | |||
|Dec. 19 | |||
|Dec. 22 | |||
|Inquiry re: order | |||
|Communication that no contract was formed | |||
|Jan. 19 | |||
}} | |||
|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 [[Contracts/Mirror image rule|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 | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minneapolis-amp-st-louis-railway-co-v-columbus-rolling-mill-co | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minneapolis-amp-st-louis-railway-co-v-columbus-rolling-mill-co | ||
Latest revision as of 04:05, December 16, 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.
- Timeline:
Dec. 5
quote requestedby Minneapolis
Dec. 8
$54/tonquote provided
by Columbus
Dec. 16
order placed for1,200 tons
Dec. 18
order canceledfor 1,200 tons
Dec. 19
order placed for2,000 tons
Dec. 22
Inquiry re: order
Jan. 19
Communication that no contract was formed
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
