Connection lost
Server error
Courteen Seed Co. v. Abraham Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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
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
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
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”