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
Horton v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas L.L.C.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana
262 S.W.3d 1 (2008)
An offer for a contract didn't include instructions for the offeree to accept. After the offeree sued for breach of contract, the court instructed the parties on contract law in Horton versus Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas.
Larry Horton owed Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas over twenty five thousand dollars.
Commercial Recovery Systems negotiated with Horton on Daimler's behalf, hoping to recover some of the money owed.
Commercial mailed Horton a letter, offering to settle the debt for one thousand dollars. According to this letter, the offer was good through June thirtieth.
It stated Horton could pay in two installments, with five hundred due on June fifteenth and five hundred due on June thirtieth.
In exchange, Daimler and Commercial would correct any derogatory credit information about Horton.
On June eighteenth, Commercial received an installment check.
The second check included a letter, which stated the payment was made in complete satisfaction of all sums owed and in complete release of the matter. Commercial received the second check and letter on July second.
Two years later, Horton realized the debt to Daimler still appeared on his credit report. Horton sued Daimler and Commercial for breach of contract.
Daimler and Commercial argued that because Horton didn't provide the money by the deadline in Commercial's letter, Horton didn't accept the offer.
Instead, the July letter was a counteroffer, which didn't require correcting Horton's credit report.
Daimler and Commercial reasoned that in accepting Horton's money, they accepted his counteroffer.
The court granted summary judgment to Daimler and Commercial, reasoning that Horton wasn't entitled to have negative credit information removed.
Horton appealed.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/horton-v-daimlerchrysler-financial-services-americas-l-l-c
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/horton-v-daimlerchrysler-financial-services-americas-l-l-c
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
Horton v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas L.L.C.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana
262 S.W.3d 1 (2008)
An offer for a contract didn't include instructions for the offeree to accept. After the offeree sued for breach of contract, the court instructed the parties on contract law in Horton versus Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas.
Larry Horton owed Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas over twenty five thousand dollars.
Commercial Recovery Systems negotiated with Horton on Daimler's behalf, hoping to recover some of the money owed.
Commercial mailed Horton a letter, offering to settle the debt for one thousand dollars. According to this letter, the offer was good through June thirtieth.
It stated Horton could pay in two installments, with five hundred due on June fifteenth and five hundred due on June thirtieth.
In exchange, Daimler and Commercial would correct any derogatory credit information about Horton.
On June eighteenth, Commercial received an installment check.
The second check included a letter, which stated the payment was made in complete satisfaction of all sums owed and in complete release of the matter. Commercial received the second check and letter on July second.
Two years later, Horton realized the debt to Daimler still appeared on his credit report. Horton sued Daimler and Commercial for breach of contract.
Daimler and Commercial argued that because Horton didn't provide the money by the deadline in Commercial's letter, Horton didn't accept the offer.
Instead, the July letter was a counteroffer, which didn't require correcting Horton's credit report.
Daimler and Commercial reasoned that in accepting Horton's money, they accepted his counteroffer.
The court granted summary judgment to Daimler and Commercial, reasoning that Horton wasn't entitled to have negative credit information removed.
Horton appealed.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/horton-v-daimlerchrysler-financial-services-americas-l-l-c
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/horton-v-daimlerchrysler-financial-services-americas-l-l-c
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
