Contracts: Indefinite Waiver of Statute of Limitations

1922 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS offers to unilateral contracts, and a recent New Jersey case emphatically repudiates it. Ettinger v. Loux, 115 Atl. 384. The court in the latter case insists that such an authority is merely an offer toward a unilateral contract, to be accepted by finding a purchaser, and subject to revocation like any other simple offer prior to acceptance by performance of the act contemplated. But so extensive is this solicitude for the broker that what we might term the "mere assumption" of the existence of a contract is not altogether uncommon in these cases. Gregory v. Bonney, 135 Cal. 589; Harrison v. Augerson, 115 Ill. App. 226 (a case almost identical with Ettinger v. Loux, supra); Hartford v. McGillicudy, o13 Me. 224; Hartwick v. Marsh, 96 Ark. 23; Black v. Snook, 204 Pa. II9. It is probably but another illustration of
doi:10.2307/1278347 fatcat:pflp5vy4bnajpki2qpf4zwazkq