17 U.S. 225 | SCOTUS | 1819
delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action, brought by the défend
On the 25th of the same month, the plaintiffs addressed to the defendant an answer to the above,dated at Georgetown, in which they acknowledge the receipt of it, and add, “ Not having heard from you before, had quite given over the expectation of getting your flour, more particularly as we requested an .answer by return of wagon the. next day,, and as we did not get it, had bought all we wanted.”
The wagoner, by whom the plaintiffs’ first letter was sent, informed them,' when he received it* that he should not probably return to Harper’s Ferry, and he did not in fact return in the defendant’s employ; The flour was sent down to Georgetown some time in March, and the delivery of it to the plaintiffs was regularly tendered and refused.
Upon this evidence, the defendants in the Court below, the plaintiffs in. error, moved that Court to instruct the jury, that, if they believéd' the said evidence to.be true, as stated, the plaintiff in this action was not entitled to recover the amount of the price of
The question is, whether the Court below ought to have given the instruction, to the jury, as the same was prayed for ? If they ought, the judgment, which was in favour of the plaintiff in that Court, must be reversed.
It is an undeniable -principle of the law of contracts, that an offer of a bargain by one person to another, imposes no obligation upon the former, until it is accepted by the latter, according to the terms in which the offer was made. Any qualification of, or departure from, those terms, invalidates the offer, unless the same be agreed to by the person who made it.. Until the terms of the agreement have received the assent of both parties, the negotiation is open, and imposes no obligation upon either.
In this case, the plaintiffs in error offered to purchase front the defendant two or three hundred barrels of flour, to be delivered at Georgetown, by the first water, and to pay for the same 9 dollars 50 cents per barrel. To the letter containing this offer, they required an answer by the return of the wagon, by which the letter was despatched. This wagon was, at that time, in the service of the defendant, and employed by him in hauling flour from his mill to Harper’s Ferry, near to which place the plaintiffs then were. The meaning of the writers was obvious., They could easily calculate by the usual length of time which was employed by this wagon, in travel-ling from Harper’s Ferry to Mill Creek, and back
It appears, however, from the bill of exceptions, that no answer to this letter was at any time sent to the plaintiffs, at Harper’s Ferry. Their offer, it is true, was accepted by the terms of a letter addressed' Georgetown, and received by the plaintiffs ■ at that place; but an acceptance communicated at a place different from that pointed out by the plaintiffs, and forming a part of their proposal, imposed no obligation binding upon them, unless they had acquiesced in'it, which they declined doing.
It is no argument, that an answer was received at Georgetown; the plaintiffs in error had a right to dictate the terms upon which they would purchase the flour, and, unless they were complied with, they were not. bound by them. All their arrangements may have been made with a view to the circumstance of place, and-they were the only judges of its
Judgment reversed. Cause remanded, with direc- , tions to award a venire facias de novo.