{
  "id": 6140349,
  "name": "HOME ICE COMPANY, INC. v. BIG \"R\" ICE COMPANY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Home Ice Co. v. Big \"R\" Ice Co.",
  "decision_date": "1993-04-07",
  "docket_number": "CA 92-920",
  "first_page": "192",
  "last_page": "195",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ark. App. 192"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "850 S.W.2d 333"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "453 F.2d 1161",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        750171
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/453/1161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 4-2-207",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(1)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 370,
    "char_count": 5931,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.904,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17492197421548514
    },
    "sha256": "ed58fc25a59205ebd6033bd8f6483de63a3cf9e012f815c17cfa8602f3de01e9",
    "simhash": "1:cb5dff23f50050c4",
    "word_count": 987
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:01.419347+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Pittman and Cooper, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HOME ICE COMPANY, INC. v. BIG \u201cR\u201d ICE COMPANY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John E. Jennings, Chief Judge.\nHome Ice Company, Inc., a manufacturer of block ice, sued Big \u201cR\u201d Ice Company, Inc., a retailer, for breach of contract. The trial court held there was no legally enforceable contract between the parties. On appeal Home Ice argues that the trial court erred in so holding. We agree and reverse.\nThe relevant facts are not in dispute. The president of Home Ice, Allison Schultz, entered into negotiations with Russell Ratliff, who ran Big \u201cR\u201d Ice, for the sale of ice. Schultz had a \u201cContract of Sale\u201d drafted stating that Home Ice was to sell, and Big \u201cR\u201d Ice was to buy, a minimum of three thousand 300 pound blocks of ice between May 1,1990, and December 31,1990, at a price of $7.00 per block. The document further stated:\n3. Additional Terms. Purchaser agrees not to sell block ice to the following individuals/businesses during the term of the contract:\n(a) Jim Creech or Camden Ice Services, Camden, Arkansas;\n(b) Vestal Ice Co., Strong, Arkansas;\n(c) Barham Ice Co., Monroe, Louisiana.\nPurchaser agrees pursuant to the terms of this contract to purchase and make payment for a minimum of three thousand 300 lb. blocks of ice at the stated price of $7.00 per 300 lb. block whether or not Purchaser takes delivery of the full three thousand 300 lb. blocks of ice. Full payment for the contracted three thousand 300 lb. blocks of ice will be made on or before December 31, 1990.\nMs. Schultz dated the contract May 29,1990, signed it, and sent it to Big \u201cR\u201d Ice. A few weeks later Schultz received the contract back from the Big \u201cR\u201d Ice, signed by Russell L. Ratliff. Under the \u201cAdditional Terms\u201d paragraph, this typed addition appeared: \u201c(d) Larry Heinrich, d/b/a Custom Cubes or any other business.\u201d This additional was initialed \u201cRLR.\u201d Schultz testified that she was confused by this addition, but that she had no problem with it. After further conversations with Big \u201cR\u201d Ice, Schultz added another handwritten paragraph to the agreement on June 26th:\n6. Seller agrees not to sell block ice to Larry Heinrich d/b/a Custom Cube or Larry Heinrich doing business under any other name during the term of this contract.\nSchultz initialed this addition and sent the contract back to Big \u201cR\u201d Ice.\nThe trial court made the following findings of fact:\nPlaintiff Corporation was at all times during pertinent times represented by its sole stockholder, Allison Schultz.\nDefendant Corporation was at pertinent times hereto represented by Russell Ratliff, now deceased.\nPlaintiffs attorney prepared the typewritten portions of the purported contract which was attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint.\nPlaintiff signed the contract May 29,1990, and mailed it to the Defendant May 29 or May 30, 1990.\nPlaintiff received the contract back June 16, 1990, signed by Defendant but modified with the addition of paragraph 3(d).\nPlaintiff was \u201cconfused\u201d about the addition of paragraph 3(d) by Defendant and recognized the inclusion of 3(d) was most likely a mistake and not representative of the agreement with Defendant.\nDiscussions ensued and Plaintiff confirmed her thought that paragraph 3(d) was a mistake.\nDefendant purchased three loads of ice from Plaintiff between June 16, 1990, and June 27, 1990, at the price mentioned in the proposed contract.\nPlaintiff added paragraph 6 as to what she believed Defendant wanted in the contract and mailed it to the Defendant for ratification on or about July 7, 1990.\nDefendant never ratified paragraph 6 and never returned the document to plaintiff.\nNeither party deleted the erroneous paragraph 3(d) from the document sued on.\nThe court then concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish a contract between the parties. While each of the findings of fact made by the trial court is fully supported by the evidence, we cannot agree with the court\u2019s legal conclusion.\nArkansas Code Annotated section 4-2-207 (1987), provides in pertinent part:\n(1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.\n(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract.\nHere, the written contract signed by an authorized representative of Home Ice was an offer. It invited acceptance by means of the signature of an authorized representative of Big \u201cR\u201d Ice. See generally Restatement (Second) of Contracts \u00a7 50 (1979). When Russell Ratliff signed the document on behalf of Big \u201cR\u201d Ice there was a contract between the parties, notwithstanding the insertion of an additional term. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 4-2-207(1). The additional term, under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 4-2-207(2), is to be construed as a proposal for an addition to the contract.\nOn the facts before us we hold that there was a contract between the parties and reverse and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. We need not and do not determine whether the additional term inserted into the contract by Russell Ratliff, or paragraph 6, subsequently inserted into the contract by Home Ice, became a part of the parties\u2019 agreement.\nReversed and remanded.\nPittman and Cooper, JJ., agree.\nFor the relationship between \u00a7 4-2-207 and the so-called \u201cmirror image\u201d rule of the common law see Restatement (Second) of Contracts \u00a7 59 cmt. a (1979) and Reporter\u2019s Note; Dorton v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 453 F.2d 1161 (6th Cir. 1972). See also Restatement (Second) of Contracts \u00a7 61 (1979) and comment a thereto.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John E. Jennings, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Anderson, Crumpler & Bell, P.A., by: Ronny J. Bell, for appellant.",
      "Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, by: Michael J. Dennis, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HOME ICE COMPANY, INC. v. BIG \u201cR\u201d ICE COMPANY, INC.\nCA 92-920\n850 S.W.2d 333\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered April 7, 1993\nAnderson, Crumpler & Bell, P.A., by: Ronny J. Bell, for appellant.\nBridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, by: Michael J. Dennis, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0192-01",
  "first_page_order": 216,
  "last_page_order": 219
}