Empire Machinery Co. v. Litton Business Telephone Systems

566 P.2d 1044 (Ariz. 1977)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Empire (P) became interested in acquiring an interconnect telephone system. P contacted Litton (D), a manufacturer and seller of interconnect systems. During the visit by the salesman, P was told about the new Superplex switching system which would be available in about a year. On June 5, 1973, D submitted a proposal to P, which was rejected. Negotiations continued until July 30, 1973, when D’s salesman sent a letter to P which stated that if P sent a signed order and deposit, D would install a Common Control Crossbar Telephone System and that system would be replaced with the Superplex system at P’s request and at no further cost. P then entered into a contract with Litton (D) to install a new 'Superplex' interconnect telephone system. In June, P sent a check of $8,546.00 for the down payment on the system along with a signed 'Equipment Sales Agreement' in which there was a home office acceptance clause in D's favor. It is acknowledged that D’s salesman did not sign this portion of the contract. It is also acknowledged that P read and understood the home office acceptance clause. The estimated date for installation was set for November 15, 1973. On August 9th, P was then requested by D’s salesman to send a form letter to Mountain Bell in order to install the interconnect system so that D could act as P’s representative. That form letter indicated that D had entered into a contract with P for the installation of an interconnect telephone system. On August 30th D wrote Mountain Bell again indicating that D had entered into a contract with P. At D's request P purchased $12,000 in equipment. On December 3, 1973, the service manager of D requested Mountain Bell to supply a new telephone number for D to be put in service as of December 21, 1973. Nothing further was done by either party after that date. D never installed the system because it was never completed. D informed P of this. P bought another interconnect system and then P sued D for damages. P contends that the letter of July 30^th signed by D’s salesman constituted an offer to sell. D moved for a summary judgment based on the fact that it had not accepted the contract with P as specified in the sales agreement. The trial court granted judgment for D and P appealed.