Martindell v. Fiduciary Counsel, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Heher, J.
A continuing offer grounded in a sufficient consideration constitutes an “option,” as the term is known to the law. Since it is a promise upon a legal consideration, it is irrevocable for the time of its continuance, and takes the classification of a contract. It is not open to the objection of want of mutuality. Such is the nature of the promise here. Its exposition is governed by the general rules of interpretation. If the language is clear and explicit, there is no room for the application of any of the secondary rules of construction. If,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- William C. Atwater & Co. v. Panama RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Atlas Portland Cement Co. v. American Brick & Clay Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Stuart v. SargentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Suhre v. BuschSupreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- Ford v. SnookAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Foard v. SniderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Shull v. SextonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1964
- Hutton v. HUTTON, ETC.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1960
- Summonte v. First Amer. Title Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981
- Duncan v. KellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.