Contracts Case Brief # 1

Title and Citation: Allen v. Bissinger & Co, 62 Utah 226 (1923).
Identities of Parties: Allen (P) was an official reporter for the
Interstate Commerce Commission who resided in New York. Bissinger &
Co (D) was a corporation engaged in buying and selling pelts, hides
and furs in Salt Lake City.
Procedure History: (D) appealed an earlier decision by a trial court
that ruled in favor of the (P).
Facts: The Interstate Commerce Commission were holding extensive
hearing on highway freight rates, when (P) wrote letters to different
large shippers of freight (including D) with an offer for copies of the
official reports of the hearings. The (D) replied back saying that they
were interested in the (P) official report and to put their name down for
a copy. Then (P) then prepared a copy of the official report of the
hearings for the D (one was sent on Sept. 13 and one was sent on Oct.
5). Once the (D) received the report, he informed (P) that the report
was useless to him and asked him to take back to reports. The (D) also
offered to pay a reasonable charge to cover the cost the reports that
(P) had already sent to him. The (P) responded by saying that they can
cancel the copy at the end of the Sept. 27th hearing, since a copy of
that report had already been created for the (D). The complete copy of
the official reports invoiced for $1,047.50. The (D) refused to pay the
(P) stating that he was completely shocked at the amount of pages it
had received and the associated cost to each page of the report. The
(P) sued (D) for the debt it refused to pay in the amount of $1,047.50.
Issue: (A) Can a contract exist if parties did not refer to the same thing
in the transaction and never agreed upon the subject matter of the
contract?
Holding and Rule: (A) Yes by applying a reasonable standard, a
contract exists where an acceptance, not necessary an offer, refers to
the subject matter of the offer and gives rise to the parties having
intention to agree on the same thing. The apparent mutual assent rule
is used.
Courts Reasoning: It is irrelevant what the unexpressed state of
mind upon the subject is, when trying to determine mutual assent. To
determine mutual assent outward expressions are looked at not
unexpressed intention. If acts/words judged by a reasonable standard
manifest an intention to agree to the matter in question than an
agreement as been formed. A reasonable standard shows an

agreement between the P and D, D cannot be released of his

agreement because the bargain wasnt in his advantage.
Judgment and Order: The trial court decision was affirmed, ruling in
favor of the (P).