Curtis Co. v. Mason

649 P.2d 1232 (1982)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Curtis Co. v. Mason

Idaho Court of Appeals
649 P.2d 1232 (1982)



In April, Norman Mason (defendant), a farmer, called D. R. Curtis Company (Curtis) (plaintiff) to ask about Curtis’s advertisement regarding soybean farming. After talking about soybeans for a while, Mason and the Curtis representative, a grain broker named Bob Mai, began to talk about Mason’s spring wheat crop. Mai told Mason how Curtis purchased wheat and how much wheat was selling for at the time. Mason, who had only ever sold wheat after harvest, asked Mai how Curtis went about purchasing wheat before it the wheat was harvested. Mason then said he might like to contract with Curtis for the sale of Mason’s spring wheat crop. Based on what Mason had told Mai about his crop, Mai outlined the terms of an agreement. In particular, Mai gave Mason a price, some information about the delivery timeframe and method, and a 9,000-bushel quantity. Mason said that he wanted to see Curtis’s contract form, and Mai said that he would send one. Mai believed that he and Mason had executed an oral agreement for the purchase of 9,000 bushels of Mason’s spring wheat and, accordingly, sold 9,000 bushels of spring wheat to a grain purchaser. Mai also signed a confirmation memorandum and sent it to Mason. That was the end of communication between Mai and Mason. The memorandum itself said that keeping the memorandum without telling Curtis about any errors constituted acceptance of the contract as stated. Mason read the memorandum when it arrived a few weeks after the phone conversation. Seeing the 9,000-bushel quantity and believing it was too much, Mason decided that he was not interested in selling to Curtis. Mason left the letter in his glovebox. A few months later, another Curtis employee went to see Mason about the supposed contract. Mason did not feel that he had a contract with Curtis. Over the next few months, Mason received calls from Curtis employees threatening to sue for breach of contract. Finally, Mason mailed the memorandum back to Curtis with “not accepted” written on the back. Curtis sued Mason for breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of Mason. Curtis appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Walters, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership