Baird v. Gimbel
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| Baird v. Gimbel | |
| Court | 2nd Circuit |
|---|---|
| Citation | 64 F.2d 344 |
| Date decided | April 10, 1933 |
Facts
This case happened in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the early 1930s.
- Gimbel Bros., Inc. = "Gimbels" = defendant = a merchant of linoleum
- James Baird Co. = "Baird" = plaintiff
- The highway department of Pennsylvania accepted a construction bid from Baird.
- Baird needed linoleum from Gimbels to fulfill the contract.
- Gimbels refused to supply the linoleum at an originally low price which had been withdrawn.
Procedural History
Baird sued Gimbels.
The district court determined that Gimbels had withdrawn the offer before Baird could accept it. Consequently, Baird lost.Issues
Does an offer for an exchange become a contract upon acceptance if there is no consideration?
Arguments
Baird argued that even if there was no contract, Gimbel should be held liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Learned Hand argued that there was no promise here.Holding
No. Without consideration, acceptance of an offer doesn't create a contract.
Judgment
Affirmed.
Reasons
Learned Hand: Submitting a bid is not acceptance. If the highway department awarded Baird the bid but then Baird repudiated the contract, Gimbel couldn't sue Baird for breach.
Hand reasoned that
(Baird's bid) != (acceptance of offer)
