Chicago Lock Co. v. Kirchner

Defendant’s counsel argue that the alleged guaranty constitutes a mere offer; that by its terms it has application to the future, is continuing, and unlimited in its *34amount, and that therefore it must be accepted by the plaintiff before it becomes binding as an effectual instrument of guaranty on the part of the defendant. In assuming this position we are satisfied that counsel is in error. The guaranty was executed pursuant to the contract. It was agreed between the two corporations entering into this contract that the number of lochs to be manufactured and shipped was 5,000, and that one of…