Muir

Niles Sand & Rock Co. v. Muir

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 183·50 Cal. App. 637·195 P. 699
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 27, 1920Civ. No. 3604.California1,925 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Wood, J.

The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendants for $15,195.51 and interest thereon, and they have appealed upon the judgment-roll.

The court found that the contract between the parties was made in two letters, marked respectively “A” and “B”; that “A” was written by Mr. Ford, the president of the plaintiff company following a discussion of the terms of the proposed contract held at the office of defendants; that “B” was written following a telephone conversation between Mr. Ford and Mr. Robert B. Muir, acting for the copartnership defendants, in which Mr. Muir rejected the letter as a proposal for a contract because, he asserted, it did not express all of the terms; that on the same day, December 14, 1914, the two letters were signed by Mr. Ford for the plaintiff corporation, marked “Accepted,” and presented to Mr. Muir, who signed for the defendants below the word “Accepted.” The bodies of these letters are as follows:

“A.”

“We herewith submit our proposal to supply all the concrete gravel and crushed gravel and sand for use in the construction of the Twin Peaks tunnel, San Francisco, at 75^ per ton of two thousand pounds f. o. b. cars San Francisco; railway weights…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.