Konic v. Spokane

*Konic International Corporation = "Konic" = plaintiff = manufacturer of surge protector

*Spokane Computer Services, Inc. = "Spokane" = defendant = buyer

*In a telephonic inquiry, Konic told a Spokane agent that a surge protector cost “fifty-six twenty.”

*The actual price was $5,620.00 (five thousand, six hundred twenty US dollars), but the Spokane agent thought it to be $56.20

*Because of snafus at both companies, neither party caught the price discrepancy until several weeks later after the surge protector had been installed.

*At that point, Spokane told Konic that it didn't want the surge protector.

*Konic informed Spokane that the surge protector would not be accepted back.

Konic sued Spokane for the payment. Konic sued for breach of contract in an Idaho state court.

An Idaho magistrate found in favor of Spokane (buyer).

Does any contract form when 2 parties have reasonable, but different, understandings of the meaning of a material term?

No. No contract forms when 2 parties have reasonable, but different, understandings of the meaning of a material term.

Affirmed

Chief Justice Walters: This case is essentially about a failure to communicate.

Mutual Assent