hoover motor express
Hoover Motor Express Co. v. Clements Paper Co.
193 Tenn. 6, 241 S.W.2d 851 (1951)
FACTS: The Hoover Motor Express Company delivered a written offer to purchase certain real estate to the Clements Paper Company on November 19, 1949. Williams, who is a vice president at Clements, had been authorized in December to accept Hoover’s offer, yet he did not contact Hoover by telephone until January 13, 1950 because he believed he would accept the offer unless he could negotiate a better deal. Clements made a written acceptance of Hoover’s offer on January 20, 1950. Hoover refused to perform, claiming that the offer was revoked on January 13. Clements stated that Hoover did not revoke its offer on January 13. Hoover claimed that Clements accepted Hoover’s offer on January 20. Clements filed suit against Hoover for breach of contract and asked the trial court for specific performance or damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Clements in holding that Hoover’s offer had not been revoked on January 13. Hoover appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree. Hoover petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
ISSUE: Did the lower court err when it held that Hoover’s offer had not been revoked on January 13, because Williams believed that he would accept the offer unless he could negotiate a better deal?
LAW: “The continued existence of the offer until acceptance, is, however, necessary to make possible the formation of the contract.” 12 American Jurisprudence, p. 531. “Under a discussion of ‘Termination of Offer,’ it is sufficient to constitute a withdrawal that knowledge of acts by the offerer inconsistent with the continuance of the offer is brought home to the offeree.” 55 American Jurisprudence, p. 488. “revocation of an offer may be made by a communication from the offeror received by the offeree, which states or implies that the offeror no longer intends to enter into the proposed contract, if the communication is received by the
193 Tenn. 6, 241 S.W.2d 851 (1951)
FACTS: The Hoover Motor Express Company delivered a written offer to purchase certain real estate to the Clements Paper Company on November 19, 1949. Williams, who is a vice president at Clements, had been authorized in December to accept Hoover’s offer, yet he did not contact Hoover by telephone until January 13, 1950 because he believed he would accept the offer unless he could negotiate a better deal. Clements made a written acceptance of Hoover’s offer on January 20, 1950. Hoover refused to perform, claiming that the offer was revoked on January 13. Clements stated that Hoover did not revoke its offer on January 13. Hoover claimed that Clements accepted Hoover’s offer on January 20. Clements filed suit against Hoover for breach of contract and asked the trial court for specific performance or damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Clements in holding that Hoover’s offer had not been revoked on January 13. Hoover appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree. Hoover petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
ISSUE: Did the lower court err when it held that Hoover’s offer had not been revoked on January 13, because Williams believed that he would accept the offer unless he could negotiate a better deal?
LAW: “The continued existence of the offer until acceptance, is, however, necessary to make possible the formation of the contract.” 12 American Jurisprudence, p. 531. “Under a discussion of ‘Termination of Offer,’ it is sufficient to constitute a withdrawal that knowledge of acts by the offerer inconsistent with the continuance of the offer is brought home to the offeree.” 55 American Jurisprudence, p. 488. “revocation of an offer may be made by a communication from the offeror received by the offeree, which states or implies that the offeror no longer intends to enter into the proposed contract, if the communication is received by the