Empire Machinery Co. v. Litton Business Telephone Systems

566 P.2d 1044 (1977)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Empire Machinery Co. v. Litton Business Telephone Systems

Arizona Court of Appeals
566 P.2d 1044 (1977)

Play video

Facts

In summer 1973, Empire Machinery Co. (Empire) (plaintiff) became interested in acquiring an “interconnect” telephone system from Litton Business Telephone Systems (Litton) (defendant). Murphy, Litton’s National Account Manager, personally contacted Empire and submitted a proposal for the phone system for Empire’s consideration. Empire and Litton entered negotiations. On July 30, 1973, Murphy submitted a letter to Empire stating that “upon receipt of a signed order and deposit” from Empire, Litton would install an interconnect telephone system on Empire’s property. Following receipt of this letter from Murphy, Whitman, Empire’s president, signed an “Equipment Sales Agreement” and delivered to Litton a deposit of $8,546.00 as a down payment. Litton deposited these funds upon receipt. The Equipment Sales Agreement contained a clause stating that the agreement would only become effective and binding after “approval, acceptance, and execution” of the agreement by Litton’s home office. Neither Murphy nor any member of Litton’s home office signed the Equipment Sales Agreement. On August 9, 1973, Empire was instructed by Murphy to send a form letter to Mountain Bell, the telephone service provider, designating Litton as Empire’s representative with authority to act in connection with the installation of the interconnect system on Empire’s property. Empire provided a letter stating that it had formed a “contractual relationship” with Litton. On August 30, 1973, Litton sent a similar letter to Mountain Bell stating that it had formed a “contractual relationship” with Empire. Additionally, Empire, at Litton’s request, purchased approximately $12,000 worth of electrical equipment to support the interconnect system equipment that would be installed by Litton. Finally, on December 3, 1973, Scott, Litton’s service manager, requested a new telephone number for Empire to be put in service as of December 21, 1973. After this date, Litton never shipped nor installed the interconnect system on Empire’s property. Empire brought suit in Arizona state court against Litton alleging breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for Litton on the ground that no binding contract was formed between Litton and Empire. Empire appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jacobson, 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 742,000 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 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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 742,000 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
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 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