#### Morris & Company, Defendant in Error, v. Heitman Lithograph Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,165.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Reversed.

Opinion filed October 18, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Morris & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against the Heitman Lithograph Company, defendant, for damages for breach of an alleged contract to furnish advertising hangers to the plaintiff. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

*527Abstract of the Decision.

Sales, § 9 * —when letter does not constitute confirmation of oral contract. A letter written by the plaintiff to the defendant, held to be an order for lithographic advertising hangers, which was not accepted by the defendant and was not a confirmation of an oral contract previously entered into by the parties, as it contained essential terms and stipulations, such as that time was of the essence of the contract and that the hangers as produced by the defendant must be perfect and to the entire satisfaction of the plaintiff, which terms the plaintiff had not contended were contained in the oral contract, and further that the oral contract, claimed to have been entered into by the plaintiff with a solicitor of the defendant, contained terms so essentially different from and more burdensome on the defendant than those contained in a bid previously submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff as to render it improbable that it was in fact ever entered into by the parties.

P. H. Bishop, for plaintiff in error.

M. W. Borders and N. G. Collins, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.