9 A.D.2d 38 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1959
Plaintiff, the general contractor for the construction of a high school building, has recovered damages for the breach by defendant of its alleged subcontract to furnish all lathing and plastering required under the general contract. On
With a letter dated May 5 plaintiff transmitted to defendant a so-called “ purchase order for the work you will be doing on this project ” and in the letter stated that plaintiff had not as yet decided what arrangements it would use for raising material to the second floor level but that defendant could be sure of plaintiff’s cooperation. By letter of May 13, defendant sought to “ remind ” plaintiff to meet the hoisting problem by selecting
The issue of basic contract law — the formation of a contract by unequivocal acceptance of a definite offer — was resolved by the jury in respondent’s favor under a comprehensive charge to which appellant took no exception. The offer constituted by appellant’s bid could scarcely have been more specific, defined
Appellant seems to suggest that the acceptance on April 7, 1955 was not intended or treated by respondent as completing a contractual arrangement since respondent later submitted a so-called purchase order which, in appellant’s view, was intended by respondent to constitute the contract. If this was the intended effect of the purchase order, appellant is in no way aided thereby as a contract arising out of an offer and acceptance will be recognized in the event it is not followed by the written contract contemplated at the time, provided the terms originally assented to are, as here, sufficiently definite. (Sanders v. Pottlitzer Bros. Fruit Co., 144 N. Y. 209; Pratt v. Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 21 N. Y. 305.)
Appellant contends finally that respondent’s submission of the purchase order constituted a counteroffer, which appellant did not and was not bound to accept, and which had the effect of rejecting appellant’s original bid.
In its brief, appellant asserts that five items listed in the purchase order are variations from and in excess of the specifications. Of these, the specifications seem broad enough to cover all except item 4 (“Broom clean all floors”) and item 5 (“ Protect all work — clean where necessary ”) and these may scarcely be deemed substantial variations or such as, upon a
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs to respondent.
Bebgan, J. P., Coon, Heblihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs to respondent.