Ortman v. Weaver
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Bill for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of standing timber. ■ The original bill alleged that defendant entered into an agreement in writing with complainant on the seventeenth of July, 1880, to sell him all the pine and hemlock timber upon certain lands in this state for the sum of $3,200; that defendant refused to perform his contract; and specific performance was prayed.
Read the full summary
Bill for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of standing timber. ■ The original bill alleged that defendant entered into an agreement in writing with complainant on the seventeenth of July, 1880, to sell him all the pine and hemlock timber upon certain lands in this state for the sum of $3,200; that defendant refused to perform his contract; and specific performance was prayed. In the supplemental hill complainant further alleged that he had learned that defendant had sold the timber to one Hollenbeck, who, since the filing of the original bill, had cut and removed the timber,…
1Opinion of the Court
Brown, D. J.
It is entirely clear that complainant’s letter of July 17th was not an acceptance of the proposition contained in defendant’s letter of the 12th. It is well settled that while the acceptance of an offer may be very brief, it must be comprehensive and unconditional. It must go to the whole of the offer, and must not attempt to qualify or vary any of its terms. 1 Parsons, .Cont. 475; Waterman, Cont. 174.
If any further correspondence or action is required by either of the parties to determine whether the offer shall be accepted, the contract is incomplete. While the letter of July…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Maclay v. HarveyIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by3 opinions
- Niles v. HancockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Thompson v. BurnsIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Apex Engineering Co. v. North American Oil ConsolidatedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926