Court Opinion

ID: 9442883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:02:40.250439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:16.051138
License: Public Domain

SWAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result. The plaintiff’s night letter was an offer, which specified that shipment was to be made no later than “early October.” The defendant’s answering telegram purported to be an acceptance of the offer but added the term “ * * * shipment will be made in October seller’s option.” This would naturally mean any time during the month, and in fact the shipment was not made until October 22— which was certainly not “early October.” An expression of assent by an offeree that changes the terms of the offer in any material respect is not an acceptance and consummates no contract. Corbin on Contracts, § 82. Normally a change in the time for shipment is a material change, and I cannot doubt that on receipt of the defendant’s telegram the plaintiff could have called the deal off and demanded the return of the check he had previously mailed. But he did not do so. Instead, he wrote on September 12th expressing the hope that the check had been received. This indicates that he, as well as, the defendant, did not consider, the extension of the time for shipment a material change in the terms of his offer. Therefore I agree with my brother’s conclusion that the contract was made before the plaintiff was notified of the name of the defendant’s principal.