Moulton v. Kershaw 59 Wis. 316, 18 N.W. 172 (Wis. 1884) Kershaw owned a salt mine and wrote a letter to a salt buyer (possible pretzel factory owner?) named Moulton, offering him salt at 85¢/bbl. Moulton wrote back and ordered 2000 bbl. Kershaw withdrew the offer and Moulton sued. o Technically, the initial letter never used the words "will sell you salt," it simply said that Kershaw was, "authorized to offer salt." Trial Court found for Moulton. Kershaw appealed. o Kershaw had argued that the initial letter was simply an offer and not a contract. Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court o Appellate Court found that it was very clear that no contract was ever perfected by the letters. o The letters did not specify a quantity of salt to be delivered. The lack of a quantity was construed to mean that it wasn't an offer. The Court said that parties could be bound by offers to sell an amount fixed by the buyer, as opposed to the seller. However, the letter Kershaw sent was not such an offer. Kershaw's letter could have said something like, "we'll sell you all the salt you want," in which case it would be binding. Without a specified quantity, the seller could be placed in a position where he'd be required to sell far more than he is able to provide. Therefore, unlimited quantity offers are generally not considered offers. o The Court felt that the letter was clearly an advertisement, not a contract. In this case, what was the offer? And what was the acceptance? o If Kershaw's letter really was an offer, and Moulton's Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0 letter really was an acceptance, then there would definitely be a contract. Kershaw won by convincing the Court that their letter was simply a request to receive an offer. The true offer in this case was Moulton's letter, and Kershaw never accepted the offer.