View Single Post
  #21  
Old Saturday, May 09, 2009
Raz's Avatar
Raz Raz is offline
Senior Member
Qualifier: Awarded to those Members who cleared css written examination - Issue reason: CE 2009 - Roll no. 2638Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: Elite CSP Medal: Members who previously received (CSP Award  and Member of the Year Award ) OR (CSP award + Gold Medal + Medal of Appreciation) are eligible for this award. - Issue reason: Member of the Year: Awarded to those community members who have made invaluable contributions to the Community in the particular year - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: In the hearts of friends and heads of foes.
Posts: 1,858
Thanks: 2,166
Thanked 3,870 Times in 1,441 Posts
Raz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant futureRaz has a brilliant future
Default

Cohen v. Clayton Coal Co.
Author: Livia Lin

Parties:
Plaintiff: Clayton Coal Co. (seller)

Defendant: Cohen (buyer)

Facts:
On Aug 14th, 1926, plaintiff wrote a letter to defendant that they would enter into an agreement, providing that from Aug 14th, 1926 to Aug 14th, 1927, plaintiff supplied lump and slack coal to defendant and the price was fixed or depending on the market price. Defendant wrote down “Accepted” and signed and mailed the copied letter to plaintiff. But the plaintiff said they never received. After Aug 14th, 1926, defendants ordered both lump and slack coal from the plaintiff and that orders were filled at the prices mentioned in Aug 14th, 1926’s letter until on April 1927 when the defendants ordered slack coal and the plaintiff refused to fill the order.

Issue:
Whether the part performance can constitute a contract in this case?

Reasoning:
There was no formal acceptance of the contract.

It is unfair to plaintiff if the market price goes up, defendant will keep the contract as compulsory while the market price goes down, defendant said there is no binding contract, which leaves plaintiff under the binding of the contract while defendant has right to select. So there is no want of mutuality and that kind of part performance did not constitute it a valid contract between the parties.

Holding:
Judgment is in favor of plaintiff.
__________________
"Tumhary nafs ki qeemat Janat hay isy Janat say kam qeemat pey na bechna."
"Jiyo to istarh ky log tum sy milny ko tarsy; maro to istrah k log tumharee mot par royain"
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Raz For This Useful Post:
kinzacss (Wednesday, March 17, 2010), princessofhearts17 (Monday, May 11, 2009)