{ "id": 5483606, "name": "Standard Growers Exchange, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, v. Leo Bredehoft et al., Defendants in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Standard Growers Exchange, Inc. v. Bredehoft", "decision_date": "1922-10-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "72", "last_page": "76", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 Ill. App. 72" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "69 N. H. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 536919 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/69/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 N. Y. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2245247 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/130/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. App. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 6045106 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/15/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "227 Ill. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 Ill. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3122994 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/161/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 Ill. 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 Ill. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5806117 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/140/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ill. 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2758725 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/90/0525-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 465, "char_count": 8630, "ocr_confidence": 0.533, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.16018926199944475 }, "sha256": "ce02ebae17805c21407d4fa4fe978facac0f03e304cb122ad1b1d6a51b6ca513", "simhash": "1:a707cbaeaa87efe4", "word_count": 1415 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:01:21.103106+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Standard Growers Exchange, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, v. Leo Bredehoft et al., Defendants in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff in error, Standard Growers Exchange,' an incorporated company engaged in the wholesale fruit business at Atlanta, Georgia, commenced this suit in assumpsit in the circuit court of Vermilion county against the defendants in error, Leo Bredehoft and Albert Ball, doing business as commission merchants under the firm name of Bredehoft & Ball, at Danville, Illinois. A recovery is sought for damages resulting to the plaintiff, because of the refusal of the defendants to accept a carload of Hiley\u2019s peaches, 'which the plaintiff shipped to Danville for the defendants from Atlanta, under an alleged contract. It is contended by the plaintiff that the contract for the purchase of the peaches is contained in the telegraphic communications which passed between the parties.\nOn July 3,1920, the defendants inquired of plaintiff:\n\u201cAdvise what you have rolling in peaches\u201d\nOn the same day plaintiff replied:\n\u201cNothing available rolling, offer Hiley\u2019s Monday\u2019s shipment, 3.75 f. o. b. according quality. Our terms quick. \u201d\nOn July 5, 1920, defendants \"wired plaintiff:\n\u201cWire price Hiley\u2019s bushels also crates.\u201d\nOn the next day plaintiff replied:\n\u201cPrompt shipment Hiley\u2019s bushels 3.00, crates 2.75.\nOur terms quick.\u201d\nOn July 7, 1920, defendants wired to plaintiff:\n\u201cWire received. Ship good car Hiley\u2019s, crates, confirm. \u2019 \u2019\nOn the same day, plaintiff replied:\n\u201cConfirm best available Hiley\u2019s. Number later.\u201d\nAnd later on the same day, plaintiff again wired to defendants:\n\u201cGiving you car 387 bushels white selling quarter higher. Billing 2.70 f. o. b. Growers 25414. \u2019 \u2019\nThere was a trial by jury, and at the close of the evidence for the plaintiff the court directed a verdict for the defendants; upon this verdict a judgment was rendered in bar of plaintiff\u2019s suit. This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse the judgment.\nIt is contended by the plaintiff in error that the court erred in directing the verdict for the defendants. The carload of peaches in question was shipped by the plaintiff to the defendants on July 7, 1920, in consequence of the interchange of telegrams herein-before set out, and arrived at Danville July 12 following. The defendants refused to accept the peaches and thereupon the following telegrams concerning the matter were exchanged.\nOn July 12, 1920, defendants wired plaintiff:\n\u201cCar peaches arrived showing bad decay. Will handle your account only. Act quick. Must be moved.\u201d\nTo which plaintiff replied:\n\u201cFile your claim by letter mailing all papers this office. This according terms of sale. Draft payable on presentation, otherwise no recourse.\u201d\nTo which defendants replied:\n\u201cWill handle peaches your account only. Heavy percent brown rot. Would prefer you divert.\u201d\nTo which plaintiff replied:\n\u201cWill not deviate from our terms. Draft must be paid immediately on presentation according our terms. W\u00e9 willing leave matter Produce Reporter for final adjustment. We will put up in escrow amount invoice. Our opinion this absolutely fair.\u201d\nTo which defendants replied:\n\u201cWill not take up draft. Will handle your account. Give you quick sales. Better act quick.\u201d\nTo which plaintiff replied on July 13, 1920:\n\u201cOur wire yesterday absolutely fair. Refer you our wires third and sixth specifically read our terms car on track your order. This final. Mailing tomorrow all papers Produce Reporter.\u201d\nTo which defendants replied:\n\u201cRefuse car. Advise disposition.\u201d\nTo which plaintiff replied:\n\u201cNot up to us to give disposition. Car on track subject your order. This absolutely final.\u201d\nTo which defendants replied':\n\u201cHad car inspected. Shows brown rot. All number twos. We bought good car. Also bought crates. \u2022 You shipped bushels. We refuse. Better divert.\u201d\nOn July 14, 1920, the plaintiff sent this telegram to defendants:\n\u201cAnswering if car bushels was not satisfactory should have advised when we wired you car number contents. We are mailing complete file Produce Reporter fipa.l adjustment. Car on track your order. Under our terms you cannot refuse to accept delivery. Pay draft.\u201d\nIt is apparent from the language of the telegrams that, as a matter of fact, no agreement was reached concerning the purchase of the peaches by the parties before the peaches arrived at Danville. The defendants\u2019 order to the plaintiff for peaches on July 7 was to ship good car of Hiley\u2019s in crates, peaches in crates being desired by the defendants for the demand of the retail trade at that time. In response to the order the plaintiff shipped a car containing 387 bushels of peaches in baskets, and being the best Hiley\u2019s available. The evidence tends to show that \u201cthe best Hiley\u2019s available\u201d were not of good quality, and some of the peaches were afflicted with brown rot. There is no evidence to show that the defendants signified in any way that they would accept 387 bushels of the best available Hiley\u2019s in bushel baskets as a substitute for the carload of good Hiley\u2019s packed in crates, which they ordered. The first expression by the defendants concerning the matter was a declination to 'accept the peaches referred to and that they would receive and handle them only on plaintiff\u2019s account, if the plaintiff wanted them to do so, and this was immediately after the peaches arrived in Danville. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendants should have wired that they would not accept the peaches shipped, and that their silence was, in effect, an acquiescence in the change of their order. As a matter of legal obligation, however, the defendants were not required to give such notice to the plaintiff, hut it was incumbent on the plaintiff to obtain from the defendants a confirmation of the change which they made in defendants\u2019 order for the peaches. Maclay v. Harvey, 90 Ill. 525; Gradle v. Warner, 140 Ill. 123; Davis v. Fidelity Fire Ins. Co., 208 Ill. 383; Brinker v. Scheunemann, 43 Ill. App. 663; Middaugh v. Stough, 161 Ill. 316; Scott v. Fowler, 227 Ill. 108; Rugg v. Davis, 15 Ill. App. 647. Under the circumstances presented the defendants\u2019 silence concerning an acceptance of the shipment in question cannot legally be regarded as an acceptance. The law on this point is tersely stated in Page on Contracts, p. 222, \u00b6 43:\n\u201cFailure or omission to reject an offer is not equivalent to an acceptance. * * * Even if the party making the offer prescribes that failure to answer shall be regarded as an acceptance, such failure does not amount to an acceptance.\u201d\n\u201cA party cannot, by the wording of his offer, turn the absence of communication of acceptance into acceptance, and compel the recipient of his offer to refuse it at the peril of being held to have accepted it.\u201d Clark on Contracts, pp. 31, 32. \u201cA person is under no obligation to do or say anything concerning a proposition which he does not choose to accept. * * *\nThere must be actual acceptance or there is no contract.\u201d More v. New York Bowery Fire Ins. Co., 130 N. Y. 537. To constitute acceptance there must be words written or spoken or some overt act. Bishop on Contracts, \u00b6 183; Prescott v. Jones, 69 N. H. 305. For the reasons stated it appears to be clear that the plaintiff\u2019s evidence did not show a contract by the defendants to purchase the peaches in question, and hence the plaintiff had no cause of action. We are of opinion that the court properly directed a verdict for the defendants. The judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus" } ], "attorneys": [ "Rearick & Meeks, for plaintiff in error.", "Lindley, Penwell & Lindley, for defendants in error; Walter C. Lindley, of counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Standard Growers Exchange, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, v. Leo Bredehoft et al., Defendants in Error.\nSales \u2014 buyer\u2019s silence not equivalent to acceptance of unauthorized substitution. No obligation by defendant\u2019s to pay for peaches shipped to them by plaintiff is shown by evidence that after an interchange of telegrams quoting prices and terms on peaches in crates and bushel baskets, defendants ordered a carload of \u201cgood peaches\u201d in crates, that plaintiff, unable to supply crates, shipped a' car of the \u201cbest available peaches\u201d in baskets and so informed defendants who made no\" reply until the peaches, not of good quality, arrived in bad condition, that they then wired a refusal to receive the shipment except on plaintiff\u2019s account, defendants\u2019 silence not being equivalent, under the circumstances, to acceptance of the inferior peaches in baskets in substitution for good peaches in crates.\nError by plaintiff to the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. John H. Marshall, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922/\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 25, 1922.\nRearick & Meeks, for plaintiff in error.\nLindley, Penwell & Lindley, for defendants in error; Walter C. Lindley, of counsel." }, "file_name": "0072-01", "first_page_order": 102, "last_page_order": 106 }