Courteen Seed Co. v. Abraham Case Brief

Oregon Supreme Court1929Docket #3952377
275 P. 684 129 Or. 427 1929 Ore. LEXIS 90

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

3 min read

tl;dr: A seller telegraphed a potential buyer, “I am asking 23 cents per pound” for seed. The buyer replied, “We accept your offer.” The court held that the seller’s statement was merely an invitation to negotiate, not a binding offer, so no contract was formed.

Legal Significance: This case establishes that a mere price quotation or a statement of a price one is “asking” is generally not a binding offer, but rather an invitation to negotiate, especially when the context suggests ongoing bargaining.

Courteen Seed Co. v. Abraham Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Defendant, Abraham, was a seller of clover seed. After some preliminary communications, Plaintiff, Courteen Seed Co., telegraphed Defendant requesting a “firm offer, naming absolutely lowest f. o. b.” In response, Defendant sent a telegram stating: “I am asking 23 cents per pound for the car of red clover seed from which your sample was taken. No. 1 seed, practically no plantain whatever. Have an offer 22-% per pound, f. o. b. Amity.” Plaintiff immediately replied by wire: “Telegram received. We accept your offer. Ship promptly…” Defendant refused to deliver the seed, asserting no contract had been formed. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for a nonsuit, and Defendant appealed.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a telegram stating “I am asking” a certain price for goods, sent in response to a request for a “firm offer,” constitute a legally binding offer that can be accepted to form a contract?

No, the defendant’s telegram was not an offer. The court held that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Does a telegram stating “I am asking” a certain price for goods, sent in response to a request for a “firm offer,” constitute a legally binding offer that can be accepted to form a contract?

Conclusion

This case provides a foundational rule for distinguishing between binding offers and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi

Legal Rule

A communication that merely states a price or provides information, such as Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis centered on discerning the defendant's intent from the specific Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A statement of a price using language like “I am asking”
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatu

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial