On July 1, Stan, a steel manufacturer, telephoned Byron and offered to sell Byron six carloads of steel at $600 a ton. Byron said, "That's a lot of steel! Would you promise to keep your offer open for 10 days so that I can think about whether I can use that much?" Stan replied, "Sure. I promise to keep the offer open for 10 days." On July 6, Stan sent a letter to Byron that stated, "I hereby revoke my offer of July 1." Byron received this letter on July 7. On July 7, Byron called Stan and said that he was accepting Stan's offer of July 1. Stan refused to deliver the steel, claiming that he had validly revoked the offer. In an action by Byron against Stan for breach of contract, judgment for whom. Explain?

Question

Abigail

Business

5 June, 22:01

On July 1, Stan, a steel manufacturer, telephoned Byron and offered to sell Byron six carloads of steel at $600 a ton. Byron said, "That's a lot of steel! Would you promise to keep your offer open for 10 days so that I can think about whether I can use that much?" Stan replied, "Sure. I promise to keep the offer open for 10 days." On July 6, Stan sent a letter to Byron that stated, "I hereby revoke my offer of July 1." Byron received this letter on July 7. On July 7, Byron called Stan and said that he was accepting Stan's offer of July 1. Stan refused to deliver the steel, claiming that he had validly revoked the offer. In an action by Byron against Stan for breach of contract, judgment for whom. Explain?

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Jocelyn Rose · Answer 1

In the given case it is valid contract as there is time, promise, benefit and obligation to do thing. But verbal contracts are difficult to prove. Stan and Byron have a verbal contract which is a promise for 10 days and the contract has exchange of goods for $600. Offer is made by Byron but the acceptance is not yet given by Stan.

Here only the offer is made and it is not yet accepted by Byron. here Stan has revoked the offer through letter so the revoke has been communicated to the other party through letter. So in this case there is no breach of contract as the contract was clearly revoked by Stan through his letter.