(DOWNLOAD) "Brandon Hma" by Mississippi Supreme Court ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Brandon Hma
- Author : Mississippi Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 11, 2001
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 73 KB
Description
Contracts — Creation Through Medium of Correspondence — Misconception of Meaning of Terms by One Party — When Insufficient to Void Agreement. Contracts — Written Agreements Susceptible of but One Meaning — Contract Unaffected by Misconception of Meaning by One Party. 1. Though, under section 7473, Revised Codes 1921, the mutual consent of the parties to a contract is an essential element thereof, where a written agreement is susceptible of but one meaning, a misconception thereof by one of the parties, not authorized by the language used, does not affect the contract. Same — Offer Susceptible of but One Meaning — Acceptance Creates Contract Though Party Accepting Attached Different Meaning Unless Other Party Knew of Misconception — When Contract Does not Result from Negotiations. 2. Where parties enter into a contract which is fairly susceptible of two meanings, and one of them places one such meaning upon it while the other places the other meaning thereon, neither party knowing the meaning which the other attaches to it, no contract exists; but if an offer is so worded as to be susceptible of but one meaning, liability under the contract cannot be evaded on the ground that a different meaning was in fact attached to the offer by one of the parties thereto, unless the other knew that such meaning was attached to it and permitted the aggrieved party to alter his position in reliance on the meaning thus understood. Same — Agreement Based on Correspondence — Evidence Sufficient to Show Offer and Acceptance not at Variance and That Plaintiff Ignorant Page 393 of Fact That Defendant Attached Different Meaning to Offer — Contract Valid. 3. In application of the above principles, held, in an action on a contract based upon correspondence passing between two lumber companies relating to the furnishing of piling of certain dimensions, plaintiff advising defendant purchaser that while piling of the butt dimensions demanded could be furnished it was impossible to supply it with the top dimensions specified, giving quotations, defendant replying, in effect, that the top dimensions were of minor importance but insisting on the stated butt dimensions and ordering the piling shipped at the prices mentioned, — that defendants acceptance was not at variance with the offer of plaintiff and that a valid contract resulted from the negotiations, nothing appearing to show that plaintiff knew that defendant attached a meaning to the offer different from that entertained by plaintiff.