Georgian Co. v. Bloom

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgian Co. v. Bloom

108 S.E. 813, 27 Ga. App. 468, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 218

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 7, 1921

Docket12487

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 108 S.E. 813 (Georgian Co. v. Bloom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Georgian Co. v. Bloom, 108 S.E. 813, 27 Ga. App. 468, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 218 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) A general advertisement in a newspaper for the sale of an indefinite quantity of goods is a mere invitation to enter into a bargain, rather than an offer. “ A business advertisement published in newspapers and circulars sent out by mail or distributed by hand, stating that the advertiser has a certain quantity or quality of goods which he wants to dispose of at certain prices, are not offers which become contracts as soon as any person to whose notice they might come signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take a certain quantity of them. They are mere invitations to all persons who may read them that the advertiser is ready to receive offers for the goods at the price stated.” 13 C. J. 289, § 97. “ If goods are advertised for sale at a certain price . . . the construction is rather favored that such advertisement is a mere invitation to enter into - a bargain, rather than an offer.” 1 Williston on Contracts, § 27. In the instant case the advertisement which is the basis of the counterclaim specified no definite quantity of the furs for sale, though there was a more or less indefinite description of the qualities of the goods. The first essential of a sale is that there must be “ an [470]*470identification .of the thing sold.” Civil Code (1910), § 4105. To consummate a contract there must be “ a meeting of minds.” There was no merit in the counterclaim-filed by the defendant in the municipal court, and .the judge of that court committed no error in striking it and entering up judgment for the plaintiff. He had a right to do so at the trial term of the court, and the judge of the superior court erred in sustaining the certiorari and ordering a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens; Jr., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) A general advertisement in a newspaper for the sale of an indefinite quantity of goods is a mere invitation to enter into a bargain, rather than an offer. “ A business advertisement published in newspapers and circulars sent out by mail or distributed by hand, stating that the advertiser has a certain quantity or quality of goods which he wants to dispose of at certain prices, are not offers which become contracts as soon as any person to whose notice they might come signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take a certain quantity of them. They are mere invitations to all persons who may read them that the advertiser is ready to receive offers for the goods at the price stated.” 13 C. J. 289, § 97. “ If goods are advertised for sale at a certain price . . . the construction is rather favored that such advertisement is a mere invitation to enter into - a bargain, rather than an offer.” 1 Williston on Contracts, § 27. In the instant case the advertisement which is the basis of the counterclaim specified no definite quantity of the furs for sale, though there was a more or less indefinite description of the qualities of the goods. The first essential of a sale is that there must be “ an [470]*470identification .of the thing sold.” Civil Code (1910), § 4105. To consummate a contract there must be “ a meeting of minds.” There was no merit in the counterclaim-filed by the defendant in the municipal court, and .the judge of that court committed no error in striking it and entering up judgment for the plaintiff. He had a right to do so at the trial term of the court, and the judge of the superior court erred in sustaining the certiorari and ordering a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens; Jr., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 813, 27 Ga. App. 468, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgian-co-v-bloom-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack