Knowledge (XXG)

Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green

Source 📝

130:, the Court noted that "the power to create a contract by acceptance of an offer terminates at the time specified in the offer, or, if no time is specified, at the end of a reasonable time". Since the agreement had no specified time, the Court then went about deciding whether the actual time had been reasonable. Since the delays in processing the Green's credit check were not unusual, there was still time to accept the offer. Defendants argued that the work was never commenced, since the roofers never actually started roofing the house. The Court however ruled that the work had actually commenced the moment the roofing company loaded its trucks, and that the contract went into force in that moment. Since there was a contract in place when the Greens refused to let the roofers from doing the job, there was a breach of contract. Thus the Appellate Court reversed the findings of the lower court and ruled for the plaintiffs. Damages were awarded to the sum of $ 85.37 for the cost of loading and driving to the property, and $ 226 in lost profits. No attorney's fees were awarded though, as their contract made no mention of the assignment of such fees: another reversal of the lower court. 31: 924: 105:
The Texas-based roofing company had made an agreement with the Greens, a family in neighboring Louisiana, to re-roof their house. The contract had a provision that it would not go into effect until commencement of performing the work. There was some delay between the signing of the agreement and the
114:
where the Greens lived. Upon arriving, the roofers found that another roofing company was already doing the job. The Greens forbade Ever-Tite from doing the job as agreed. Having not been made aware of this, nor had the Greens communicated a desire to cancel the agreement, the roofing company sued
435: 106:
start of work because the work was being done on credit and the roofing company had to get the Greens' credit checked. Once their credit was deemed worthy, the roofers loaded up their trucks and drove from their base in
518: 428: 272: 319: 674: 352: 333: 442: 233: 830: 622: 265: 525: 778: 974: 803: 258: 979: 733: 407: 400: 312: 615: 449: 147: 414: 511: 474: 549: 945: 629: 490: 456: 205: 577: 667: 934: 878: 608: 371: 281: 41: 421: 111: 823: 344: 305: 127: 126:
The appellate Court focused on whether the agreement had gone into force and become a contract. Relying on the
118:
The Trial Court ruled for the Greens, also awarding attorney's fees to them, and the roofing company appealed.
660: 563: 536: 463: 762: 740: 571: 107: 94: 382: 296: 869: 696: 559: 178:"EVER-TITE ROOFING CORPORATION v. GREEN | 83 So.2d 449 | La. Ct. App. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine" 796: 771: 681: 497: 177: 898: 889: 814: 692: 837: 706: 651: 601: 588: 844: 504: 483: 148:"Ever-Tite Roofing v. Green - "Performance as Acceptance" - THE BARGAIN RELATIONSHIP II" 859: 724: 713: 544: 968: 592: 362: 30: 390: 250: 386: 923: 436:
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
206:"Ever-Tite Roofing Corp v. Green | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis" 519:
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court
429:
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation
234:"Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green | Case Brief for Law Students" 254: 917: 115:
for the cost of driving to the property and lost profit.
320:
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
97:
case. It is commonly taught to first year law students.
941: 948:
to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.
888: 868: 858: 813: 788: 761: 754: 723: 691: 650: 643: 587: 558: 535: 473: 381: 361: 343: 295: 288: 76: 68: 63: 55: 47: 37: 23: 675:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America 353:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States 334:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc 831:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States 443:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology 623:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States 266: 8: 526:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 865: 779:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly 758: 647: 292: 273: 259: 251: 29: 20: 804:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 313:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino 734:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 408:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. 139: 93:83 So. 2d 449 (Louisiana, 1955) is an 90:Ever-Tite Roofing Corporation v. Green 82:breach of contract, abrogation, notice 24:Ever-Tite Roofing Corporation v. Green 616:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 450:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc. 7: 228: 226: 200: 198: 172: 170: 168: 933:needs additional or more specific 415:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. 14: 922: 550:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent 512:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ. 327:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green 975:United States contract case law 59:83 So. 2d 449 (Louisiana, 1955) 16:1955 American contract law case 980:1955 in United States case law 630:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton 491:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon 457:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. 1: 578:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. 668:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. 996: 879:Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 699:(unwritten & informal) 609:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods 372:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc. 282:United States contract law 42:Louisiana Court of Appeals 644:Defense against formation 422:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg 112:Webster Parish, Louisiana 81: 28: 824:United States v. Spearin 345:Implied-in-fact contract 306:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. 128:Restatement of Contracts 661:Morrison v. Amway Corp. 537:Substantial performance 464:Feldman v. Google, Inc. 741:Buchwald v. Paramount 572:De Cicco v. Schweizer 108:Shreveport, Louisiana 95:American contract law 297:Offer and acceptance 870:Promissory estoppel 755:Cancelling Contract 797:Stoddard v. Martin 772:Sherwood v. Walker 682:McMichael v. Price 498:Kirksey v. Kirksey 401:Specht v. Netscape 289:Contract formation 963: 962: 946:adding categories 912: 911: 908: 907: 899:Britton v. Turner 890:Unjust enrichment 854: 853: 815:Misrepresentation 750: 749: 693:Statute of frauds 639: 638: 86: 85: 987: 958: 955: 949: 926: 918: 866: 838:Laidlaw v. Organ 759: 707:Buffaloe v. Hart 695:(written) & 652:Illusory promise 648: 602:Hawkins v. McGee 589:Implied warranty 293: 275: 268: 261: 252: 245: 244: 242: 240: 230: 221: 220: 218: 216: 202: 193: 192: 190: 188: 182:www.casemine.com 174: 163: 162: 160: 158: 144: 64:Court membership 33: 21: 995: 994: 990: 989: 988: 986: 985: 984: 965: 964: 959: 953: 950: 939: 927: 915: 913: 904: 884: 850: 845:Smith v. Bolles 809: 784: 746: 719: 687: 635: 583: 554: 531: 505:Angel v. Murray 484:Hamer v. Sidway 469: 377: 357: 339: 284: 279: 249: 248: 238: 236: 232: 231: 224: 214: 212: 204: 203: 196: 186: 184: 176: 175: 166: 156: 154: 146: 145: 141: 136: 124: 103: 17: 12: 11: 5: 993: 991: 983: 982: 977: 967: 966: 961: 960: 930: 928: 921: 910: 909: 906: 905: 903: 902: 894: 892: 886: 885: 883: 882: 874: 872: 863: 860:Quasi-contract 856: 855: 852: 851: 849: 848: 841: 834: 827: 819: 817: 811: 810: 808: 807: 800: 792: 790: 786: 785: 783: 782: 775: 767: 765: 756: 752: 751: 748: 747: 745: 744: 737: 729: 727: 725:Unconscionable 721: 720: 718: 717: 714:Foman v. Davis 710: 702: 700: 697:Parol evidence 689: 688: 686: 685: 678: 671: 664: 656: 654: 645: 641: 640: 637: 636: 634: 633: 626: 619: 612: 605: 597: 595: 585: 584: 582: 581: 574: 568: 566: 556: 555: 553: 552: 547: 545:Lucy v. Zehmer 541: 539: 533: 532: 530: 529: 522: 515: 508: 501: 494: 487: 479: 477: 471: 470: 468: 467: 460: 453: 446: 439: 432: 425: 418: 411: 404: 396: 394: 379: 378: 376: 375: 367: 365: 359: 358: 356: 355: 349: 347: 341: 340: 338: 337: 330: 323: 316: 309: 301: 299: 290: 286: 285: 280: 278: 277: 270: 263: 255: 247: 246: 222: 194: 164: 138: 137: 135: 132: 123: 120: 102: 99: 84: 83: 79: 78: 74: 73: 70: 66: 65: 61: 60: 57: 53: 52: 49: 45: 44: 39: 35: 34: 26: 25: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 992: 981: 978: 976: 973: 972: 970: 957: 947: 943: 937: 936: 931:This article 929: 925: 920: 919: 916: 901: 900: 896: 895: 893: 891: 887: 881: 880: 876: 875: 873: 871: 867: 864: 861: 857: 847: 846: 842: 840: 839: 835: 833: 832: 828: 826: 825: 821: 820: 818: 816: 812: 806: 805: 801: 799: 798: 794: 793: 791: 787: 781: 780: 776: 774: 773: 769: 768: 766: 764: 760: 757: 753: 743: 742: 738: 736: 735: 731: 730: 728: 726: 722: 716: 715: 711: 709: 708: 704: 703: 701: 698: 694: 690: 684: 683: 679: 677: 676: 672: 670: 669: 665: 663: 662: 658: 657: 655: 653: 649: 646: 642: 632: 631: 627: 625: 624: 620: 618: 617: 613: 611: 610: 606: 604: 603: 599: 598: 596: 594: 593:caveat emptor 590: 586: 580: 579: 575: 573: 570: 569: 567: 565: 561: 557: 551: 548: 546: 543: 542: 540: 538: 534: 528: 527: 523: 521: 520: 516: 514: 513: 509: 507: 506: 502: 500: 499: 495: 493: 492: 488: 486: 485: 481: 480: 478: 476: 475:Consideration 472: 466: 465: 461: 459: 458: 454: 452: 451: 447: 445: 444: 440: 438: 437: 433: 431: 430: 426: 424: 423: 419: 417: 416: 412: 410: 409: 405: 403: 402: 398: 397: 395: 392: 388: 384: 380: 374: 373: 369: 368: 366: 364: 360: 354: 351: 350: 348: 346: 342: 336: 335: 331: 329: 328: 324: 322: 321: 317: 315: 314: 310: 308: 307: 303: 302: 300: 298: 294: 291: 287: 283: 276: 271: 269: 264: 262: 257: 256: 253: 235: 229: 227: 223: 211: 207: 201: 199: 195: 183: 179: 173: 171: 169: 165: 153: 149: 143: 140: 133: 131: 129: 121: 119: 116: 113: 109: 100: 98: 96: 92: 91: 80: 75: 72:Justice Ayres 71: 69:Judge sitting 67: 62: 58: 54: 50: 46: 43: 40: 36: 32: 27: 22: 19: 951: 932: 914: 897: 877: 843: 836: 829: 822: 802: 795: 777: 770: 739: 732: 712: 705: 680: 673: 666: 659: 628: 621: 614: 607: 600: 576: 524: 517: 510: 503: 496: 489: 482: 462: 455: 448: 441: 434: 427: 420: 413: 406: 399: 370: 363:Mailbox rule 332: 326: 325: 318: 311: 304: 237:. Retrieved 213:. Retrieved 209: 185:. Retrieved 181: 155:. Retrieved 151: 142: 125: 117: 104: 89: 88: 87: 18: 564:3rd parties 969:Categories 935:categories 862:obligation 789:Illegality 393:agreements 391:Browsewrap 383:Shrinkwrap 134:References 101:Background 954:June 2023 387:Clickwrap 239:August 4, 215:August 4, 210:Community 187:August 4, 157:August 4, 122:Judgement 56:Citations 942:help out 152:Coursera 77:Keywords 940:Please 763:Mistake 560:Privity 48:Decided 562:& 38:Court 241:2021 217:2021 189:2021 159:2021 51:1955 944:by 110:to 971:: 591:, 389:, 385:, 225:^ 208:. 197:^ 180:. 167:^ 150:. 956:) 952:( 938:. 274:e 267:t 260:v 243:. 219:. 191:. 161:.

Index


Louisiana Court of Appeals
American contract law
Shreveport, Louisiana
Webster Parish, Louisiana
Restatement of Contracts
"Ever-Tite Roofing v. Green - "Performance as Acceptance" - THE BARGAIN RELATIONSHIP II"



"EVER-TITE ROOFING CORPORATION v. GREEN | 83 So.2d 449 | La. Ct. App. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine"


"Ever-Tite Roofing Corp v. Green | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis"


"Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green | Case Brief for Law Students"
v
t
e
United States contract law
Offer and acceptance
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino
Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green
Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc
Implied-in-fact contract
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States
Mailbox rule

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.