Opinion ID: 2022392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: curtis 1000, inc.

Text: 4. Liability against Curtis 1000, Inc., must be predicated, if it exists at all, on a negligent failure to furnish the lockers 3M purchased. In order to establish this proposition, 3M proceeds on the theory that this purchase was based on the confirmation sheet dated August 7, 1950, the essential part of which is set forth above. The evidence establishes, however, that the bid of Curtis 1000, Inc., was accepted and the purchase completed prior to the preparation of this instrument, which, instead of constituting the contract of the parties, was supposed to be a confirmation of a contract already consummated. With respect to the terms of the contract, the evidence shows that, at the time 3M's purchasing department received the bid of Curtis 1000, Inc., it had available to it a catalog of Berger's, the manufacturer of these lockers, showing the exact description and specifications of the type of locker covered by the bid. It also had the architect's specifications. No one representing Curtis 1000, Inc., ever saw the architect's specifications. They did see the blueprints, but the blueprints contained no detailed description of the lockers required. It also appears that many, if not all, of the manufacturers of this type of locker have standardized the construction of it and that a standard locker is made of 16-gauge steel on the front and 24-gauge steel on the balance of the exterior, exactly like the ones furnished here. 3M received at least one other bid. That bid also was based on the same gauge steel as the bid of Curtis 1000, Inc. 3M had purchased many lockers before this, all of which were of the same type of construction as those purchased here. There is some evidence that, when Curtis 1000, Inc., received the confirmation sheet referred to above, its representative called the purchasing department of 3M and was advised to disregard the discrepancy between the bid and the confirmation as to the gauge of steel involved. Even if that testimony be disregarded, it seems inconceivable that 3M did not get exactly what it ordered and purchased. There is some claim that the members of the purchasing department who placed the order had no authority to deviate from the specifications of the architect. The seller could hardly be chargeable with knowledge of the intricate corporate rules of authority or lack of it of the many interlocking departments of a concern as large as 3M. It dealt with the man who represented the purchasing department of this company, which was held out to the public as the department which had authority to make purchases, as it had done before. Pursuant to that dealing, it submitted a bid to furnish a specified article for a specified price. The company accepted that bid and received and accepted the article covered by the bid. 3M had ample opportunity to check the description of the article covered by the bid in the manufacturer's catalog and to compare it with the architect's specifications. If it chose to purchase without ascertaining whether the equipment it purchased complied with the architect's specifications, it should not now be heard to say that the seller was negligent in not supplying something it did not offer to sell in its bid. We think that the evidence is conclusive that 3M received exactly what it purchased; consequently, that the court correctly held that Curtis 1000, Inc., was not liable. Affirmed.