James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros. Inc.

64 F.2d 344 (1933)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

James Baird Co. (plaintiff) and Gimbel Bros., Inc. (defendant) were involved in a contractual dispute after Gimbel revoked their original offer to supply linoleum for a construction project prior to Baird’s formal acceptance but after Baird had relied on that offer in its bid submission.

The main issue presented was whether Gimbel’s withdrawn offer could form a binding contract through reliance by Baird. The Court concluded that no enforceable contract existed because the offer was withdrawn before formal acceptance and did not fall under ‘promissory estoppel’, as it was intended for exchange rather than unilateral reliance.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

James Baird Co. (plaintiff) engaged in the construction industry, received a bid from Gimbel Bros., Inc. (defendant), a New York merchant, to supply linoleum for a public building project in Pennsylvania. The bid from Gimbel offered to provide all the linoleum necessary at set lump sum prices, which varied based on the quality of the materials.

This offer was extended to several contractors with the expectation of prompt acceptance once the general contract was awarded.

However, Gimbel realized it had miscalculated the required amount of linoleum, prompting them to withdraw their initial offer and propose a new one at approximately double the price.

Before receiving notice of this withdrawal, James Baird Co. had already submitted their construction bid, relying on Gimbel’s initial quoted price. After being awarded the construction contract, James Baird Co. attempted to formally accept Gimbel’s original offer, but Gimbel refused to honor it, leading to a dispute over an alleged breach of contract.

Procedural History

History Icon
  1. The trial court held that there was no enforceable contract between James Baird Co. and Gimbel Bros., Inc., dismissing the plaintiff’s claims.
  2. James Baird Co. appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

I.R.A.C. Format

Issue

Issue Icon

Whether an offer for a sale that is withdrawn before acceptance can result in a binding contract if the offeree has relied on that offer in submitting a bid for a construction project.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

In general, an offer can be withdrawn before it is accepted without creating a contract obligation. However, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, an offeror may be bound by an offer if the offeree reasonably relies on it to their detriment.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Court reasoned that although Gimbel Bros., Inc. knew that withdrawing their offer could put contractors in a challenging position, there was no evidence suggesting that merely using Gimbel’s quoted prices in a bid constituted acceptance of their offer.

In fact, had James Baird Co. retracted their bid after being awarded the contract or if they had faced bankruptcy, Gimbel could not have held them liable for breach of contract based on their initial offer.

The language used in Gimbel’s offer indicated anticipation of a typical acceptance communication after the awarding of the general contract, rather than considering the usage of their quoted prices in bids as equivalent to acceptance.

Additionally, ‘promissory estoppel’ did not apply because Gimbel’s offer intended an exchange — delivery of linoleum in return for payment upon acceptance — rather than constituting a unilateral promise open for reliance without formal acceptance.

Conclusion

Conclusion Icon

The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that no enforceable contract was formed between James Baird Co. and Gimbel Bros., Inc.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. An offer can generally be withdrawn before it is formally accepted without resulting in a binding contract.
  2. The doctrine of ‘promissory estoppel’ will not transform an unaccepted offer into an enforceable promise unless it constitutes a donative promise upon which the promisee justifiably relied to their detriment.
  3. The specific language and stipulations contained within an offer are crucial in determining whether acting upon an offer equates to its acceptance.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes a formal acceptance of an offer in contract law?

Formal acceptance occurs when the offeree communicates their assent to the terms of the offer in a manner invited or required by the offeror, often through explicit acceptance or conduct implying commitment.

  • For example: A contractor sends a signed agreement back to the supplier, clearly indicating acceptance of the supply terms.

How does promissory estoppel apply when an offer is relied upon to one's detriment?

Promissory estoppel applies when one party reasonably relies on a promise made by another party and suffers a loss as a result, preventing the promisor from arguing that an enforceable contract did not exist.

  • For example: A landscaper purchases plants based on a client’s promise of a landscaping job, but the client withdraws; promissory estoppel may require the client to cover costs.

In what scenarios might an offer be considered irrevocable?

An offer may be considered irrevocable if it is supported by consideration, there’s an option contract in place, or under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the offeror provides a firm written offer for a specified time.

  • For example: A seller agrees in writing to hold an offer open for 10 days in exchange for a deposit from the buyer.

References

Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Contracts