Akers v. J.B. Sedberry: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''Facts''': Engineers offered resignation. Was rejected, then two days later accepted. '''Holding''': The offer to resign no longer existed after it was rejected. {{Template:C...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Holding''': The offer to resign no longer existed after it was rejected. | '''Holding''': The offer to resign no longer existed after it was rejected. | ||
A determination of what constitutes a “reasonable time” is a question of fact depending on the nature of the contract proposed, usages of business, and other factual circumstances. An offer made by one to another face to face is deemed to continue only to the close of their conversation and cannot be accepted thereafter (Restatement (2d) of Contracts 40). | |||
The court held that in this case Ps’ face to face offer was terminated when Mrs. Sedberry rejected it. The attempt by D to terminate the contract the following day was a breach and Ps were entitled to the recovery granted by the trial court. | |||
'''Notes''': This is known as the ''in praesenti'' rule and it applies to telephone conversations as well as face to face meetings. 1 | |||
{{Template:Cases Stub}} | {{Template:Cases Stub}} | ||
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]] | [[Category:Cases:Contracts]] | ||
1 http://www.lawnix.com/cases/akers-sedberry.html | |||
Revision as of 16:54, April 6, 2013
Facts: Engineers offered resignation. Was rejected, then two days later accepted.
Holding: The offer to resign no longer existed after it was rejected.
A determination of what constitutes a “reasonable time” is a question of fact depending on the nature of the contract proposed, usages of business, and other factual circumstances. An offer made by one to another face to face is deemed to continue only to the close of their conversation and cannot be accepted thereafter (Restatement (2d) of Contracts 40).
The court held that in this case Ps’ face to face offer was terminated when Mrs. Sedberry rejected it. The attempt by D to terminate the contract the following day was a breach and Ps were entitled to the recovery granted by the trial court.
Notes: This is known as the in praesenti rule and it applies to telephone conversations as well as face to face meetings. 1
| This is a case brief stub. |
| You can help by adding to it. |
