Court Opinion

ID: 6421712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:00:22.353436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:48.411399
License: Public Domain

Field, J.
We infer from the report, that the court found that the contract was not merely an offer by the defendant to sell, which would have been revocable at any time, except so far as it had been accepted by the plaintiffs in giving orders, and would thus be a contract only to the extent of those orders; but that it was a contract whereby the plaintiffs agreed to buy, and the defendant agreed to sell, such of the goods dealt in by the defendant as the plaintiffs needed in their trade during the time specified. See Dickinson v. Dodds, 2 Ch. D. 463. The plaintiffs were bound in law to pay for the goods sent after the new agreement was made according to the prices stipulated in that agreement. In this Commonwealth the delivery of the goods by the defendant under the new agreement, whether they were sent to fill the orders given before October 14, or the orders given after, is considered a sufficient consideration for the new promise of the plaintiff. Whether the new agreement was substituted for the old, and thus operated as a rescission or discharge of it, must *444be determined by the intention of the parties, to be ascertained from their correspondence and conduct. Munroe v. Perkins, 9 Pick. 298. Cummings v. Arnold, 3 Met. 486. Stearns v. Hall, 9 Gush. 31. Holmes v. Doane, 9 Cush. 135. Peck v. Requa, 13 Gray, 407. Lawrence v. Davey, 28 Vt. 264. Stewart v. Keteltas, 36 N. Y. 388. Cooke v. Murphy, 70 Ill. 96. Moore v. Detroit Locomotive Works, 14 Mich. 266.
If we assume that the original agreement was sufficiently definite to constitute a valid contract, as it was a continuing contract, the parties could clearly substitute for it a new contract, which should determine their rights and liabilities after the new contract was made, and this would operate as a waiver or discharge of the first contract as to future orders and deliveries, unless it appeared that the first contract had been broken by an absolute refusal on the part of the defendant to perform it, and that the new contract was not intended to be a discharge of the breach. As to the orders given before October 14, which the defendant had refused to fill, if the new contract by its terms covered those, we think the same rule holds. If the parties agreed that these orders should be filled at the prices stipulated for in the new contract, without considering whether the new agreement would of itself be a discharge of these partial breach esi, performance of the new agreement would operate as a discharge', or an accord and satisfaction, unless it appeared that such was not the intention of the parties. Such a substituted agreement prima facie takes the place of the original agreement as to everything remaining unperformed.
Our construction of the correspondence and conduct of the parties is, that it was not understood or intended by both parties that the plaintiffs should retain their right of action, if they had any, for the alleged breach of the original contract.
Judgment for the defendant.