Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Okapi13, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co.

(1936)

Alabama Supreme Court - 176 Miss. 645, 170 So. 227

Tags: Silence

tl;dr:

Silence may be interpreted as acceptance based on parties' prior course of dealing.

Case Summary

In Ammons v. Wilson & Co. (1936), a wholesale grocer sued a company for breach of contract, alleging that the company implicitly agreed to his order for 942 cases of shortening by not responding for twelve days. The grocer had previously placed several orders with the company, all of which were accepted and shipped within a week. However, this time the company rejected the order after twelve days, citing a price increase in shortening. The grocer sued to enforce the contract, arguing that the company's silence implied acceptance.

The trial courts both sided with the company, determining that no contract was formed. The court explained that the order was not an offer, but rather an invitation to negotiate.

The appellate court stated that the issue should have been presented to the jury and sent the case back to the lower court.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingR.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co. case brief facts & holding

Facts:Plaintiff Ammons was a wholesaler who has previously ordered shortening...

Holding:The trial court's finding was reversed and the issue remanded...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: GARDNER, Justice.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Italian Society of Mutual Beneficence filed a petition for Certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in the case of Italian Society of Mutual Beneficence v. Vacarella et al. The writ was denied by the majority opinion of Justice Gardner, with Chief Justice Anderson and Justices Bouldin and Foster concurring with the decision.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co.

Chat for R.L. Ammons v. Wilson & Co.
brief-88
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.