From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
64 F.2d 344 (1933)
Facts
Gimbel Bros, Inc. (defendant) submitted a bid to James Baird Co. (Baird) (plaintiff) and other contractors, offering to supply the linoleum for a construction contract for a quoted price. Gimbel's offer stated, among other things, that Gimbel was making the offer at the stated price "for reasonable . . . prompt acceptance after the general contract has been awarded." In calculating its offer, Gimbel had underestimated by half the amount of linoleum required for the project. Upon realizing its mistake, Gimbel sent a notice to all of the contractors that Gimbel was withdrawing the old offer and would substitute a new offer to supply the linoleum for twice the price of the original offer. Before receiving Gimbel's notice of withdrawal, Baird submitted its bid for the construction contract using Gimbel’s original quoted price. Baird was awarded the construction contract. Baird formally accepted Gimbel’s original offer two days after Gimbel’s withdrawal of the offer. Gimbel refused to recognize the contract. Baird filed suit for breach of contract. The trial court held that there was no contract, and Baird appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hand, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.