## Facts

- Flour merchants in Georgetown sent a written offer to a Virginia mill owner to buy 200–300 barrels of flour at $9.50 per barrel, deliverable in Georgetown by the “first water.”
- The offer included a postscript directing: “Please write by return of wagon, whether you accept our offer.”
- The offer was delivered to the mill owner by a wagoner in the mill owner’s employ who was about to return.
- The mill owner replied the next day but sent his reply by regular mail, addressed to Georgetown, stating he accepted the proposal for 300 barrels and would ship by the first boats; he did not send an answer by the returning wagon.
- After receiving the mailed reply, the merchants responded that, because they had not heard “by return of wagon,” they had purchased the flour elsewhere and would not take his shipment.
- The mill owner later tendered flour in Georgetown; the merchants refused, and the mill owner sued for damages for nonperformance.

## Issues

1. Whether an acceptance communicated by a method and to a place different from those prescribed in the offer creates a binding contract.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury in a manner that treated the mailed response as an effective acceptance and proceeded to damages without first resolving whether a contract was formed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the mill owner and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held no contract was formed because the purported acceptance did not comply with the offer’s specified mode of acceptance (“by return of wagon”).
- Because no contract existed, the trial court’s jury instructions premised on the existence of an agreement were erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- An offer imposes no obligation on the offeror unless accepted according to the terms on which the offer was made.
- The offeror may prescribe the time, place, and manner of acceptance.
- A purported acceptance that qualifies or departs from the prescribed terms is not an acceptance; it is a new proposal that the original offeror may accept or reject.
- A court must determine contract formation before addressing damages for alleged nonperformance.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the merchants were not bound because the offeree did not accept in the manner required by the offer; the mailed response was ineffective to form a contract, so liability for nonperformance could not be imposed.


Eliason v. Henshaw, 17 U.S. 225 (1819)