Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Contracts - Konic Intntl v. Spokane Comp Svc (9/9)
Topic Started: Sep 6 2008, 02:15 AM (26 Views)
Mike
KONIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, dba Transtector Systems, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPOKANE COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation, Defendant-Respondent

No. 15882

Court of Appeals of Idaho

109 Idaho 527; 708 P.2d 932; 1985 Ida. App. LEXIS 758


November 4, 1985

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Honorable Watt E. Prather, District Judge; Honorable A. H. Parisot, Jr., Magistrate.

DISPOSITION: District court decision on appeal, upholding a magistrate's judgment for defendant in suit to collect for goods sold, and determining that no contract existed between the parties, affirmed.
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seller sought review of the decision of the District Court of the First Judicial District (Idaho), which affirmed the magistrate's decision granting judgment for defendant buyer in the seller's breach of contract lawsuit for the alleged sale of goods.

OVERVIEW: One of the buyer's representatives spoke to the seller about purchasing a surge protector. The representative had priced units, getting prices from $ 50 to $ 200. The seller offered to sell a unit for $ 5,620, which the representative misinterpreted as $ 56.20. The representative worked up a purchase order for $ 56.20, and placed an order with the seller. The unit was installed while the buyer's president was on vacation. When the president returned from vacation, he immediately ordered that power to the equipment be turned off because the surge protector was obviously worth more than $ 56.20. The president contacted the seller to have them pick up the protector, but the seller refused and brought suit for the purchase price. The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting judgment for the buyer. The court held that there was no sales contract because the parties had a material mutual misunderstanding and any agreement that they thought they had reached was merely an illusion.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's decision granting judgment for the buyer.


CORE TERMS: ship, present case, surge, protector, apparent authority, attorney fees, authority to order, purchase order, salesman, different meanings, mutual assent, manifestation, restitution, materially, formation, fault, material term, installation, discrepancy, electrical, processing, contacted, responded, installed, inquired, vacation, invoice


LexisNexis® Headnotes Hide


Contracts Law > Contract Interpretation > Parol Evidence > General Overview
Contracts Law > Formation > Ambiguity & Mistake > General Overview
Evidence > Documentary Evidence > Parol Evidence HN1 There is no manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange if the parties attach materially different meanings to their manifestations and neither knows or has reason to know the meaning attached by the other. Even though the parties manifest mutual assent to the same words of agreement, there may be no contract because of a material difference of understanding as to the terms of the exchange. Where a phrase of contract is reasonably capable of different interpretations there is no contract. The doctrine applies only when the parties have different understandings of their expression of agreement. The doctrine does not apply when one party's understanding, because of that party's fault, is less reasonable than the other party's understanding. Parol evidence is admissible to establish the facts necessary to apply the rule. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote


Civil Procedure > Appeals > Reviewability > Preservation for Review
Evidence > Demonstrative Evidence > Computer-Generated Evidence HN2 The Idaho Court of Appeals will not review issues different from those presented to the intermediate appellate court. More Like This Headnote
Administrator
Quote Post Goto Top Offline Profile
« Previous Topic · Contracts · Next Topic »
Add Reply