Central Invest. Corp. of Denver v. CONTAINER ADV. CO.
471 P.2d 647 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an offer does not specify a duration for acceptance, the offeree must accept within a 'reasonable time,' which is determined from the perspective of what a reasonable offeror would consider satisfactory, especially if the offeree knows the offeror's purpose and the time sensitivity involved.
Facts:
- In 1963, Container Advertising Co. (Container) borrowed $150,000 from Central Investment Corporation (CIC) through a loan agreement, and CIC's executive vice-president, Mulvihill, joined Container's board of directors.
- By July 1, 1965, Container was in default on the loan, leading its officers, George Aubrey and Al J. Hickerson, to engage in discussions with Mulvihill to find repayment solutions.
- Aubrey and Hickerson delivered a proposed recapitalization agreement to CIC on September 21, 1965, with an exhibit following on September 27, 1965, which outlined a plan for Container's reorganization and specified a completion deadline of November 1, 1965.
- The proposal urged CIC to respond "at the earliest possible time," emphasized that recapitalization was "imperative," and included a guarantee from Aubrey and Hickerson to invest $75,000 or purchase CIC's debentures by November 1, 1965.
- CIC prepared a written acceptance dated October 8, 1965, but intentionally delayed mailing it until October 19, resulting in Container not receiving the acceptance until October 21, 1965.
- CIC was fully aware of the urgency of Container's reorganization and the significant work required to meet the November 1, 1965, completion deadline specified in the proposal.
- The reorganization plan was complex and involved converting various debts and debentures into stock, all of which was to be completed by November 1, 1965.
Procedural Posture:
- Central Investment Corporation (CIC) initiated an action in state trial court against Container Advertising Co. (Container) to recover a $150,000 loan and against Container, George Aubrey, and Al J. Hickerson for specific performance of an alleged contract.
- Container confessed judgment on the claim for the money loaned to it.
- The trial court, after the presentation of CIC's case in a trial without a jury, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the specific performance claim.
- CIC, as the plaintiff in error (appellant), appealed this order and judgment of dismissal to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was Central Investment Corporation's acceptance of Container Advertising Co.'s recapitalization proposal made within a reasonable time, thereby forming an enforceable contract?
Opinions:
Majority - SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge
No, Central Investment Corporation's acceptance of Container Advertising Co.'s recapitalization proposal was not made within a reasonable time, and therefore, no enforceable contract was formed. The court affirmed the trial court's finding, which concluded that the acceptance was not timely under the circumstances. The determination of a 'reasonable time' for acceptance, in the absence of an express or implied limitation, should be viewed from the perspective of the offeror, considering what a reasonable person in the offeree's position would believe to be satisfactory to the offeror. This means the offeree cannot delay acceptance to suit its own convenience or watch the market, especially when the offeror's purpose, which requires prompt action, is known to the offeree. In this case, CIC was aware of the imperative nature of Container's reorganization and the critical November 1, 1965, deadline. CIC's deliberate delay in communicating acceptance until October 21, leaving only ten days to complete a complex reorganization plan, was not reasonable given these known circumstances. The purpose of the offeror, to be achieved through the contract's performance, directly impacts the time allowed for acceptance, and acceptance is not valid if it's too late to achieve that purpose. Given the trial court's substantiation by the evidence, the appellate court cannot interfere with its finding.
Analysis:
This case emphasizes that when an offer does not specify a deadline for acceptance, the 'reasonable time' standard is not subjective to the offeree's desires but objectively tied to the offeror's known purpose and practical deadlines. It reinforces the principle that offerees have a responsibility to consider the offeror's needs and the context of the offer when deciding how quickly to accept. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for parties in time-sensitive transactions, highlighting the risk of strategic delays in acceptance that could negate the formation of a contract. Future cases involving implicit deadlines will likely reference this perspective-shifting definition of 'reasonable time,' particularly where the offeree possessed knowledge of the offeror's urgent objectives.
