Parker Drilling Co. v. Romfor Supply Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding of mutual assent by the parties to an alleged implied-in-fact contract
• holding that “a purported acceptance that changes or qualifies an offer’s material terms constitutes a rejection and counteroffer rather than an acceptance”
• stating that purported acceptance that changes or qualifies offer’s material terms constitutes rejection and counteroffer rather than acceptance
• “Contracts should be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine which terms are material or essential.”
• “Contracts should be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine which terms are material or essential.”
• “Romfor failed to prove each of the elements necessary to establish the existence of a legally enforceable contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).