Year: 1874

New York Merchant and Banker. April %.


A case of much importance to business


men i'll all trades was lately decided in the


United States Circuit Court in St. Louis,


Missouri, i'll manner which must have


given surprise to all parties interested. The


facts of the case are briefly as follows: Dur


ing the month of February, 1873, Messrs.


Hall, kimbark & Co., iron dealers, of Chi
cago, sent out through the mail circulars


offering to sell Jenk's patent seat springs at


a certain price. One Of these circulars
reached the hands of rival iron dealer in


st. Louis, who saw chance to make money
on springs at that price, and wrote to Messls.


Hall, khmbark d Co. ordering three thous-
and pairs. That firm, however, refused to


fill the order, and the St. Louis dealer


brought suit for damages At the trial,


which came off few days ago, dispositions


were read showing that the Chicago house


considered the order of the St. Louis dealer
an unusually large one, and for that reason


they refused to fill it. The case was argued
at considerable length, and committed to the
jury, who returned q verdict awarding the


plaintiff damages to the amount of $3.50,


being the difference between the price Of
the springs as advertised by the defendants
and their market value week or two later


This is certainly an extraordinary verdict


not more extraordinary, however than
the charge of the Judge in committing the
case to the jury. In this charge the prin-
cipal was laid down that, when merchant
sends circular by mail offering to sell an
article at stated price, he is bound to fill,
at that price, an order which comes to him
by due course of mail, unless his circular
contains reservation or limit as to time.


AS this is, so far as we know, the first


e .lc1 i I


the courts, it is certainly matter of great
interest to business men to know whether
the ruling of the court was based upon
"good law" If the principal laid down in
the charge admits of universal application,
anyone can compel merchant to sell goods
to any amount at any price which he may


advertise, whether lie wants to sell or not.
Again if he sends out circular to-day Of
ferlng goods at price he can to-day afford
to sell them at, and omits to limit the time
he will till orders at that price, he can be
held accountable for refusing to fill orders
at that price received at subsequent time,
even though the market price of the goods
may have advanced. This may be law, but
it certainly is not justice. In the case
above mentioned it does not appear that
the plaintiff suffered any injury from the
refusal of the.defendants to ill his order, ex-
cept that he failed to make the profit he
would have made had he obtained the
springs at the advertised price. On the
other hand it did not appear that the defen-
dant agreed to sell him three thousand pairs
of springs, but it did appear that it would
have been to his injury to have done so.
Had he ordered ten or twenty thousand,
he would have had just as mnch right to
demand damages for the non-flling of his
order as in the present case; and if the
circular contained no limitations, he might
with equal confidence have ordered million
pairs. We have not had opportunity to
examine the law bearing upon cases of this
kind, but we are of the opinion that it would
be difficult to establish the fact that the
sending out of circular and the receiving
of an order, without any other conference
or agreement between the parties constitu-
ted avalid contract A merchant certainly
has the paivilege of refusing to sell to |
customers with whom, for any reason, he |
does not wish to deal; but, according to the |
ruling of the Court in this case, he has no
such privilege his circular, offering certain
goods at a certain price, reaches such
customer and an order is received by mail
II this be law, however, our merchants in
some branches of business will have to
more cautiously, and avoid offering
goods at prices at which they will not sell
any quantity to any buyer.