Moulton v. Kershaw

59 Wis. 316 · Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1884

Facts

Appellants sent a letter stating they were "authorized to offer Michigan fine salt" at certain prices. Respondent replied with a telegram ordering 2,000 barrels of salt. The dispute arose whether these communications formed a binding contract.

Issue

Did the appellants' letter, which stated they were "authorized to offer" salt, constitute a binding offer that could be accepted by the respondent's telegram to form a contract for 2,000 barrels?

Holding

No, the court held that the appellants' letter was not a binding offer, and therefore, no contract was perfected by the respondent's reply telegram. The circuit court's order was reversed.

Rule

A communication is not a binding offer if it is merely a general solicitation or advertisement intended to attract patronage, rather than a definite proposal to sell a specific quantity to an individual. The language must clearly indicate an intent to be bound upon acceptance.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-03-02. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.