Georgian Co. v. Bloom
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc. (Haw. 2002)
- Trotter v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (S.C. Ct. App. 1988)
- Uhlig v. Darby Bank & Trust Co. (11th Cir. 2014)
- Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. (Minn. 1957)
- Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1941)
- Lovett v. Frederick Loeser & Co. (City of New York Municipal Court 1924)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
(After stating the foregoing facts.) A general advertisement in a newspaper for the sale of an indefinite quantity of goods is a mere invitation to enter into a bargain, rather than an offer. “ A business advertisement published in newspapers and circulars sent out by mail or distributed by hand, stating that the advertiser has a certain quantity or quality of goods which he wants to dispose of at certain prices, are not offers which become contracts as soon as any person to whose notice they might come signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take a certain quantity of them. They are mere invitations to all persons who may read them that the advertiser is ready to receive offers for the goods at the price stated.” 13 C. J. 289, § 97. “ If goods are advertised for sale at a certain price . . . the construction is rather favored that such advertisement is a mere invitation to enter into - a bargain, rather than an offer.” 1 Williston on Contracts, § 27. In the instant case the advertisement which is the basis of the counterclaim specified no definite quantity of the furs for sale, though there was a more or less indefinite description of the qualities of the goods. The first essential of a sale is that there must be “ an
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.