Fuchs v. Meyer
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStevens, J.
The only question presented is whether the plaintiff has lost his right to have his money refunded because of the time that elapsed before he demanded the return of his money.
The paper here in question constituted an offer which imposed no liability upon the defendant until it was accepted by the plaintiff. As the offer did not fix the time within which it must be accepted in order to constitute a binding contract, the law supplies the limitation that the' offer must be accepted within a reasonable time. “An acceptance . . . after the lapse of a reasonable time imposes no obligation upon the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Minnesota Linseed Oil Co. v. Collier White Lead Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1876
- Starkweather v. GleasonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Park v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Will of DennettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- McCracken v. HarnedSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1901
3Cited by3 opinions
- Magee v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1939
- Hoffman v. PartridgeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949
- McDonald v. Van EttaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930