Legal Opinion

Gurfein v. Werbelovsky

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided August 4, 1922PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.

The writing sued on is in the form of a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff accepting an antecedent proposal to buy five cases of glass on terms set forth in the acceptance. The final sentence of the letter is as follows: “You have the option to cancel the above order before shipment.” It is this phrase which gives rise to the claim that the contract is void for want of mutuality. The defendant’s acceptance appears to be unconditional, and the objection is that the plaintiff in making his proposal reserved the right to cancel it at will. If that is so, the demurrer must be sustained.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Willcox & Gibbs Sewing MacHine Co. v. EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. KennedySupreme Court of Virginia · 1904
  3. Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. F. G. Walker Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
  4. Nicolls v. WetmoreSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Shattuck v. Precision-Toyota, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1977
  2. De Witt County Public Building Commission v. County of De WittAppellate Court of Illinois · 1984
  3. H. P. Hood & Sons v. HeinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1964
  4. Alfred M. Best Co., Inc. v. GoldsteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
  5. Hill v. WrightSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1941

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API