Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Idaho_answered

    Uploaded by

    hath.lcc

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Idaho_answered

    Uploaded by

    hath.lcc
    0 views1 page

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    0 views1 page

    Idaho_answered

    Uploaded by

    hath.lcc

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    A.

    Name of the case, name of the parties:


    Name of the case: Konic International Corporation v. Spokane Computer Services, Inc.
    708 P.2d 932 (Idaho 1985)
    Name of parties:
    Claimant: Konic International Corporation
    Defendant: Spokane Computer Services, Inc.
    B. Summary of the facts of the case
    - David Young, an employee of Spokane Computer, inquired the price of surge protector
    from Konic’s salesmen who responded “fifty-six twenty” each. The salesman meant $5,620.
    Young in turn thought $56.20.
    - Young prepared a purchase order for $56.20 and had it approved by the appropriate
    authority.
    - Young telephoned the order and purchase order number to Konic who then shipped the
    equipment to Spokane Compute.
    - Konic delivered and Spokane Computer received the surge protector and installed it in its
    office.
    - The President of Spokane found out about the discrepancies in prices, contacted Konic, told
    Konic that Young had no authority to order such equipment, that Konic should remove the
    surge protector.
    - Konic wants to be paid, Spokane refused to pay, and this litigation ensued.

    C. Legal issues:
    1. Has there been a contract between Konic and Spokane?
    2. Did Young have authority to order?

    D. Rulings/ Holdings
    1. The Court concludes that no contract between the parties was ever formed
    2. The Court do not reach the issue of whether Young had authority to order the equipment.

    E. Reasoning of the Court


    Rules: Raffles v. Wichelhaus: The court ruled that because each party had a different ship in
    mind at the time of the contract, there was in fact no binding contract.
    The case law was later incorporated into Section 71 of the Restatement of Contracts and has
    now evolved into section 20 of Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981).
    1. Because the “fifty-six twenty” designation was a material term expressed in an ambiguous
    form to which two meanings were obviously applied, the court concluded that no contract
    between the parties was ever formed.
    2. Because of no contract was formed, the court did not reach the issue of whether Young had
    authority to order the equipment.

    You might also like