Southwest Engineering Co. v. Martin Tractor Co., Inc.
Kansas Supreme Court
473 P.2d 18 (1970)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Southwest Engineering Co. (Southwest) (plaintiff), a general contractor, wanted to bid on a government contract to construct lighting facilities at a military base. Southwest’s construction superintendent, R.E. Cloepfil, contacted Martin Tractor Co. (Martin) (defendant) to price generator equipment for a component of the project. On April 12, 1966, a manager at Martin, Ken Hurt, quoted a price of $18,500 and reconfirmed that price by phone on April 13. Southwest submitted a bid for the project on April 14, relying on Martin’s quote of $18,500. The bid was accepted, and Southwest reported the acceptance to Martin. On April 28, Cloepfil and Hurt met to discuss the project. Hurt provided Cloepfil with a handwritten memorandum itemizing a new price of $21,500 for the generator, and Cloepfil agreed to the increased price. In the top left-hand corner of the memorandum, Hurt wrote, “Ken Hurt, Martin Tractor, Topeka, Caterpillar.” Cloepfil and Hurt raised, but did not agree upon, a schedule of payment for the equipment. Martin ultimately failed to provide the generator, and Southwest was forced to buy the generator from another company for $27,541. Southwest sued Martin for breach of contract, and Martin responded that no contract had been formed between the parties. The trial court found that an agreement was in fact formed at the meeting on April 28, and judgment was entered for Southwest after a bench trial. Martin appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fontron, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.