Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Brewer v. Lepman
Missouri Court of Appeals
127 Mo. App. 693, 106 S.W. 1107 (1908)
Ordinarily, an offeree may accept an offer to contract within a reasonable time after the offer is made. After a reasonable time passes, the offer lapses and can no longer be accepted.
In Brewer versus Lepman, we explore whether an offer by its terms can shorten the acceptance window.
Illinois egg dealer, Louie Lepman, wanted to purchase fresh eggs from JE Brewer, a Kansas egg dealer. Lepman sent Brewer a telegraph offering to buy a carload of eggs to be shipped the same day for eighteen cents per dozen. The offer specified that prompt wire acceptance was required.
The telegram arrived at Brewer's office at ten o five AM. Brewer was out of the office and didn't see the telegram until his return at eleven thirty AM. Brewer wrote an acceptance and sent it to the telegraph office at noon, but the telegraph operator was at lunch. Brewer tried again at one PM, but the operator still had not returned.
Brewer then went to lunch. The result of the delays was that Brewer's telegram was received by the local operator at two forty five PM and received by Lepman at three thirty one PM.
Lepman then telegraphed Brewer to say that the acceptance was too late and that Lepman would only take the eggs at a discounted rate.
By that point, Brewer had already shipped the eggs, but he refused to sell them at a discount, and Lepman refused to accept them.
Brewer sued Lepman for breach of contract. Lepman argued that the offer to purchase lapsed before it was accepted, and consequently, there was no contract that Lepman could have breached.
The trial court originally held in Brewer's favor, but then granted Lepman's motion for a new trial. Brewer appealed the new trial order.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/brewer-v-lepman
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/brewer-v-lepman
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Brewer v. Lepman
Missouri Court of Appeals
127 Mo. App. 693, 106 S.W. 1107 (1908)
Ordinarily, an offeree may accept an offer to contract within a reasonable time after the offer is made. After a reasonable time passes, the offer lapses and can no longer be accepted.
In Brewer versus Lepman, we explore whether an offer by its terms can shorten the acceptance window.
Illinois egg dealer, Louie Lepman, wanted to purchase fresh eggs from JE Brewer, a Kansas egg dealer. Lepman sent Brewer a telegraph offering to buy a carload of eggs to be shipped the same day for eighteen cents per dozen. The offer specified that prompt wire acceptance was required.
The telegram arrived at Brewer's office at ten o five AM. Brewer was out of the office and didn't see the telegram until his return at eleven thirty AM. Brewer wrote an acceptance and sent it to the telegraph office at noon, but the telegraph operator was at lunch. Brewer tried again at one PM, but the operator still had not returned.
Brewer then went to lunch. The result of the delays was that Brewer's telegram was received by the local operator at two forty five PM and received by Lepman at three thirty one PM.
Lepman then telegraphed Brewer to say that the acceptance was too late and that Lepman would only take the eggs at a discounted rate.
By that point, Brewer had already shipped the eggs, but he refused to sell them at a discount, and Lepman refused to accept them.
Brewer sued Lepman for breach of contract. Lepman argued that the offer to purchase lapsed before it was accepted, and consequently, there was no contract that Lepman could have breached.
The trial court originally held in Brewer's favor, but then granted Lepman's motion for a new trial. Brewer appealed the new trial order.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/brewer-v-lepman
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/brewer-v-lepman
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
