Konic International Corporation v. Spokane Computer Services, Inc.

David Young, an employee of Spokane Computer Services (Spokane) (defendant), was told to buy a surge protector and asked a Konic (plaintiff) salesman the price, who quoted "fifty-six twenty," meaning $5,620.00, but which Young understood to mean $56.20. Young prepared and got approval for a purchase order at $56.20, and Konic shipped the surge protector, which Spokane installed and immediately used. Due to internal processing errors on both sides, the price discrepancy went unnoticed until Spokane's president returned from vacation, and it took another two weeks after that for Young to fail to verify the price with Konic as instructed. Once the actual price became clear, Spokane's president told Konic that Young had no authority to place the order, that Spokane didn't want the unit, and that it should be removed; Konic responded that the unit now belonged to Spokane and threatened suit if the balance wasn't paid. Konic sued when Spokane didn't pay, and the magistrate found Young lacked actual or apparent authority to place the order, ruling Spokane not liable. The state court affirmed, and Konic appealed.

Whether an enforceable contract exists when there is a mutual difference of understanding or mistake regarding the meaning of a material term of the contract.