Seaboard Lithographing Co. v. Tait
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Keller, J.,
This was an action in assumpsit for (1) goods manufactured and delivered pursuant to contract, and (2) damages for breach of contract in refusing to accept the balance of goods ordered. The defense was that defendants’ order had never been accepted and therefore no contract had been entered into; and that the goods delivered had been returned because not ordered.
There can be no valid contract without a meeting of minds; an acceptance by the one of the other’s offer. But this acceptance can be evidenced by acts no less, than by words. The rule is well stated in Oye., as…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Person & Riegel Co. v. LippsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
- Hoffman v. Bloomsburg & Sullivan R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Eckert v. SchochSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Foyle v. CommonwealthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Tile-Rite Co. v. Hartsuff, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County1950