Carrollton Co. v. Ruggles Truck Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Giannetti v. Cornillie

    204 Mich. App. 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    Thus, "`[a]ny material departure from the terms of an offer invalidates the offer as made and results in a counter proposition, which, unless accepted, cannot be enforced.'" Harper, supra at 655 (quoting Carrollton Acceptance Co v Ruggles Motor Truck Co, 253 Mich. 1, 5; 234 N.W. 134). Plaintiffs argue that the modification of the mortgage amount did not vitiate their purported acceptance because the mortgage amount, unlike the purchase price, was not a material term of the contract.

  2. Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Mich. Resin Representatives, LLC

    Case No. 11-13335 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 14, 2013)

    Several decades ago, the Michigan Supreme Court held that "[a]ny material departure from the terms of an offer invalidates the offer as made and results in a counter proposition, which, unless accepted, cannot be enforced." Carrollton Acceptance Co. v. Ruggles Motor Truck Co., 253 Mich. 1, 5 (Mich. 1931). Thus, Lemanski's extensive revisions to Barrette Outdoor's offer was, in effect, a rejection of the offer.

  3. Harper Building Co. v. Kaplan

    332 Mich. 651 (Mich. 1952)   Cited 18 times

    "Any material departure from the terms of an offer invalidates the offer as made and results in a counter proposition, which, unless accepted, cannot be enforced." Carrollton Acceptance Co. v. Ruggles Motor Truck Co., 253 Mich. 1, 5. "The acceptance must be absolute and unconditional and if conditions are attached or if it differs from the offer, the transaction amounts only to a proposal and a counter proposal."

  4. Seelye v. Broad

    2 Mich. App. 177 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 5 times

    (Authorities cited.) Carrollton Acceptance Co. v. Ruggles Motor Truck Co. (1931), 253 Mich. 1, 5. "`There must be no variance between the acceptance and the offer.