BEARD IMPLEMENT CO. V. KRUSA 208 Ill.App.2d 953 (1991) CASE BRIEF

BEARD IMPLEMENT CO. V. KRUSA

208 Ill.App.2d 953 (1991)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over a contract to purchase a combine.

FACTS: Beard (P) met with Krusa (D) to discuss the purchase of a new combine. D's old combine had broken. D filled out a purchase order for a new combine but none of P's representatives signed the order. D also gave P a counter check for $5,200 that was undated and intended to represent the down payment on the purchase price of $52,800. D claims that the check was undated because he was to call P later to let him know if he wanted to proceed with the transaction. D called back and told P that he did not want to proceed with the deal. D then met with a representative of Cox Implement Company and bought the same equipment for a lower price. D then sent a letter stating that he was not going to purchase the equipment from P. P met with D and then sent P's salesmen a $100 check for his time expended on the unclosed sale. The purchase order had never been signed by P. The trial court found a contract had been formed. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner