. Florists' review [microform]. Floriculture. is'fetion hw. COAL CONTRACT IN COUBT. Interpretation of Wording. Florists who bargain for their coal requirements for definite periods will be interested in a decision handed ^own by the Illinois Appellate court lately, in that it shows the advantage of ha\^ ing definite understandings in such bargaining. The court holds that an agreement which provides that a coal company will deliver all the coal that a con- sumer may '' desire, or want'' during a given period is unenforceable as lack- ing mutuality. In other words, it falls within the general pr
. Florists' review [microform]. Floriculture. is'fetion hw. COAL CONTRACT IN COUBT. Interpretation of Wording. Florists who bargain for their coal requirements for definite periods will be interested in a decision handed ^own by the Illinois Appellate court lately, in that it shows the advantage of ha\^ ing definite understandings in such bargaining. The court holds that an agreement which provides that a coal company will deliver all the coal that a con- sumer may '' desire, or want'' during a given period is unenforceable as lack- ing mutuality. In other words, it falls within the general principle of contract law that there can be no valid agree- ment unless there is reciprocal obliga- tion. A buyer must be bound to accept delivery, as well as the seller obligated to make it. But, fallowing the view taken by other courts, it is decided that a con- tract is valid which provides for de- livery of all the coal '' needed, required, or consumed'' by the buyer during a certain time. The quantity is made definite by ascertainment of the actual extent of the buyer's requirements, which he is bound to accept, and which the seller is bound to deliver. The Court's Decision. In this case it appeared that an in- stitution had previously purchased its annual requirements of coal from a min- ing company under contracts estimating the quantity needed. The particular contract stipulated that the company would furnish coal for the year ending August 31, 1917, as follows: "About 2,000 tons of screenings at $ per ton," etc. The buyer's actual require- ments exceeded this estimate and the selling coal company denied its obliga- tion to furnish the excess at the con- tract price. Deciding the controversy in the buyer's favor, the court said: '' The most reasonable explanation for the use of the words 'about 2,000 tons' is that this is a contract for the season's supply of coal, and the words quoted are the estimate of the season's requirements. We believe that in view of
Size: 1705px × 1465px
Photo credit: © Library Book Collection / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecad, booksubjectfloriculture, bookyear1912
