Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Konic International Corporation v. Spokane Computer Services, Inc.

708 P.2d 932 (1985)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Konic International Corporation v. Spokane Computer Services, Inc.

Idaho Court of Appeals

708 P.2d 932 (1985)

Play video

Facts

David Young, an employee of Spokane Computer Services, Inc. (Spokane) (defendant) was instructed by his superior to purchase a surge protector for his company. Young inquired about the price of surge protectors manufactured by Konic International Corporation (Konic), and was informed the price was “fifty-six twenty.” The Konic salesman meant the price was $5,620.00, but Young understood it to be $56.20. Young prepared a purchase order for $56.20 and obtained approval for the purchase order from his superior. Young placed the order with Konic, and Konic shipped the surge protector to Spokane where it was installed and immediately used. Due to internal processing errors, the discrepancy in the price on Spokane’s purchase order and Konic’s invoice was not immediately noticed. The discrepancy was first noticed by Spokane’s president when he returned from vacation. Spokane’s president requested that Young verify the price with Konic, but Young failed to do so. As a result, the discrepancy in price went unnoticed by Spokane for another two weeks. Once Spokane’s president learned of the actual discrepancy in price, he telephoned Konic and told Konic that Young had no authority to order the surge protector, that Spokane did not want it, and that it should be removed. Konic responded that the surge protector was Spokane’s property now, and that if the balance owed on the price was not paid, Konic would sue Spokane. Spokane did not pay the balance, and Konic brought suit against Spokane. The suit was heard before an Idaho magistrate. The magistrate held Young had no actual or apparent authority to order the surge protector, and found Spokane not liable for the balance. The Idaho state court affirmed, and Konic appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

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 604,000 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 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 604,000 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
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 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