Ford v. Gebhardt
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. D. D. Fisheb, Judge. (1) First. A contract results from a proposal and acceptance. The acceptance in such case must be unequivocal, unconditional and without variance of any sort between it and the proposal; otherwise there is no mutual assent of the parties to the same thing, and hence no contract. A contract can only result when the offer made is met by an acceptance which corresponds with the offer in every particular.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. D. D. Fisheb, Judge. (1) First. A contract results from a proposal and acceptance. The acceptance in such case must be unequivocal, unconditional and without variance of any sort between it and the proposal; otherwise there is no mutual assent of the parties to the same thing, and hence no contract. A contract can only result when the offer made is met by an acceptance which corresponds with the offer in every particular. Bruner v. Wheaton, 46 Mo. 363; Robinson v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 494; Mfg. Co. v. Broderick, 12 Mo. App. 378; Stotesburg v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Bkaoe, J.,
This is an action to enforce the performance of an alleged contract for the sale of two vacant lots in the city of St. Louis. The trial court upon the hearing dismissed the bill and rendered judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appeals.
The evidence tends to prove that the defendant, Charles E. Q-ebhardt, was at one time the owner of the lots; that he is a photographer, living and doing business in Memphis, Tennessee; that in the same city resided Dr. Pool, who also owned some lots in the same block; that the plaintiff, who is an attorney in the city of St. Louis,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Barthel v. EngleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914