Opinion ID: 1824577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was There a Bilateral Contract?

Text: The purchase order contained the following provision: You further agree that either the delivery of any item covered by this order or the written approval of this order shall constitute an acceptance thereof. Thus, without making delivery, Mr. Lazarus could have created an enforceable bilateral contract by submitting a written approval of the purchase order. The trial judge's determination that written approval was not given by Mr. Lazarus is fully supported by the record. The companies involved in this litigation are all engaged in the business of buying or selling large quantities of steel. In view of the steel shortage which then existed, it is completely understandable that Mr. Lazarus chose not to utilize that portion of the purchase order which would have permitted him to create an enforceable contract. The trial judge was warranted upon this record in concluding that Mr. Lazarus did not bind himself to deliver the steel or to be liable for the consequences. Judge DECKER noted that the issuance of the purchase order gave the offeree a license to hunt steel for which payment would be made on delivery. When the trial judge added that it does not require clairvoyance to understand  why Mr. Lazarus did not avail himself of the opportunity to create a bilateral contract, he undoubtedly had reference to the market condition which existed at the time of the steel shortage. This is the practical construction of a rational business instrument which we referred to in Bitker & Gerner Co. v. Green Investment Co. (1956), 273 Wis. 116, 120, 76 N. W. (2d) 549.