Appellate Court of Illinois
567 N.E.2d 345 (1991)
On December 23, 1985, Carl Krusa (defendant) signed a purchase order to buy a combine from Beard Implement Company, Inc. (Beard) (plaintiff). The purchase order stated “This order subject to acceptance by dealer” with a place for the dealer to sign. Unaware of whether the purchase order was ever signed by Beard, Krusa revoked his offer to purchase the combine on December 26, 1985. Beard sued Krusa for breach of contract. Krusa argued that no contract was ever formed because Beard never accepted his offer to buy the combine by signing the purchase order. Therefore, he validly revoked his offer. The trial court found that a valid contract existed between the parties and Krusa appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Steigmann, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 199,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.