Novelly Oil Co. v. Mathy Construction Co.

I have no quarrel with the majority’s statement of the applicable contract principles. I believe, however, that the parties entered into a binding contract.

*625The majority does not attach sufficient significance to the previous dealings between the parties.1 In June 1986 Kenneth Fenton, representing Apex, telephoned James Lager, representing Mathy Construction, and inquired as to a possible sale by Apex to Mathy of liquid asphalt. On June 13, 1986, in a telephone conversation with Lager, Apex, through Fenton, agreed to sell to Mathy 120-159 pen grade asphalt, subject to credit approval. The…