Akers v. J.B. Sedberry: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|subject=Contracts | |||
}} | |||
'''Facts''': Engineers offered resignation. Was rejected, then two days later accepted. | '''Facts''': Engineers offered resignation. Was rejected, then two days later accepted. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 13: | ||
{{Template:Cases Stub}} | {{Template:Cases Stub}} | ||
1 http://www.lawnix.com/cases/akers-sedberry.html | 1 http://www.lawnix.com/cases/akers-sedberry.html | ||
Latest revision as of 20:48, October 24, 2023
| Akers v. J.B. Sedberry | |
| Court | |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | |
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. |
