The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 54
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
54 2t FEDERAL REPORTER
fact orders they could not have been of value to the Macdonald &
Kiley Company in helping them determine the amount and various kinds
of leather needed. But there is nothing in the testimony showing that
they were ever objected to, after their receipt, as being ambiguous or
indefinite or in any way unsatisfactory. In a letter dated June 29th,
and which evidently relates to the blanket order of April 24th. above
printed, the Macdonald & Kiley Company wrote the defendant as fol-
"An item, which I wish to call to your attention, is in regard to the Tan
Calf shoe, and that is to the effect that the tan calf shoe at $3.50 per pair is
a very difficult proposition for us, as the cutting figures in this shoe are way
aoove cost for the shoe at $3 50. This refers only to the 3 50 shoe in the
tan leather. We have plenty of stock to cover the $4 shoe, which is the
No. 33, or darker shade of leather. We hope you can see your way clear to
give us as many shoes as possible in the $4 grades, as a tan shoe at $3.50 is
rather disastrous to us. Where it is possible iwe hope you can cut this order
down in the $3.50 shoe in the tan leather, and put same in the $4 grade, as
we realize you would not wish us to go too far in making a shoe at an actual
An order may be either an offer or an acceptance. The blanket orders
given in this case appear to have been offers The evidence in the rec-
ord discloses that these offers were accepted by the Macdonald & Kiley
Company, to which they were made. On April 19th, acknowledging
receipt of the first of the blanket orders, the company wrote, referring
to the gun metal, patent, tan calf, and patent calf shoes:
"We beg to state we have material on hand to take care of these entire
orders at the present time."
Then they added:
"In case there is any difficulty in regard to getting the particular shade of
buck top that you desire, we will get into Vommunicatiou with, you and have
you use your influence with the Richard Foupg Company."
,On .April 28th the company acknowledged receipt of the second
blanket order, writing:
"Wel have your specifications of April 20th and are adding same to your
blanket order of April 14th. We beg to state in regard to the material, to
cover these specifications, we are in excellent shape. * * * With regard
to the buck situation for the tops of shoes, we can say it is clearing up very
nicely. Monday morning we will receive enough bufir material to take care of
your last orders. * * * From the above you can see the situation in re-
gard to this material will meet all of your requirements."
On May 29th, concededly after all three blanket orders were given,
the, company asked for a readjustment of the selling price of the
Cordovans. If it had not considered that it had accepted the orders, it
would have been unnecessary to plead for a readjustment of the selling
price. In a letter dated June 21st, the company 'wrote, acquiescing in
the, defendant's request that its order for 5,000 pairs of Cordovans
should be reduced to 2,000 pairs, and added;
"you must recognize the fact that we carried out gll of our obligations in
thit tegard and covered on enough material to take care'of your entire order."
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/76/: accessed March 22, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.