Watts v. Carter Sons, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. USA Cable v. World Wrestling Fed. Ent.

    Civil Action No. 17983 (Del. Ch. Jun. 27, 2000)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Marlene Industries Corp. v. Carnac Textiles, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 327, 332 (N.Y. 1978) (citing Poel v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 216 N.Y. 310 (1915)).Homayonuni v. Paribas, 660 N.Y.S.2d 413, 414 (N.Y.App.Div. 199 2); Watts v. Carter Sons, Inc., 202 N.Y.S. 852, 854 (N.Y.App.Div. 192 4). Put differently, New York law holds that "[t]o conclude an agreement, the acceptance must meet and correspond with the offer in every respect, neither falling short of nor going beyond the terms proposed, but meeting them exactly at all points and closing them just as they stand."

  2. Homayouni v. Paribas

    241 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 19 times

    — Even in the absence of consideration flowing from plaintiff to defendant, the latter's qualified acceptance may itself be enforceable as an executory accord (General Obligations Law § 15-501). A qualified acceptance such as this is nothing more than a counteroffer ( Richards v. Levy, 40 A.D.2d 1055). Indeed, whenever a purported acceptance is even slightly at variance with the terms of an offer, the qualified response operates as a rejection and termination of — and substitution for — the initially offered terms ( New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Wellesley Capital Partners, 200 A.D.2d 143, 148; Watts v. Carter Sons, 207 App. Div. 656). Acceptance of this counteroffer would supersede any inconsistent term in the original offer ( see, Caulfield v. Improved Risk Muts., 107 A.D.2d 1013, 1014-1015 [Hancock, J., dissenting], revd on dissenting mem 66 N.Y.2d 793), and establish the counteroffer as the new outer limit of defendant's contractual undertaking. In March 1994, plaintiff voluntarily left her job with defendant and moved back to New York. Six months later, she commenced a lawsuit in Supreme Court to recover $296, 950 from not only the New York storage company, but also seven other parties, several of whom were entirely unknown to defendant.

  3. Watts v. Thomas Carter Sons, Inc.

    214 App. Div. 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1925)

    Present — Kelly, P.J., Jaycox, Manning, Young and Kapper, JJ. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, on authority of Watts v. Carter Sons, Inc. ( 207 App. Div. 656).

  4. KASS v. GRAIS

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 32940 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007)

    There must have been a meeting of the minds of the contracting parties in respect to every material detail of the contract, and if the precise thing offered was not accepted, or if the acceptance was in any manner qualified by conditions or reservations, no valid contract is made, but such a modified or qualified acceptance must be treated as a rejection of the offer. Watts v Thomas Carter Sons, Inc., 207 AD 656 (1924) . While this slight variance would not, in the commercial context, operate as a rejection of the original offer constituting a counteroffer, UCC § 2-207, here it causes the Court to pause and ask what were the Sellers thinking when they changed the date.