Gurfein v. Werbelovsky, 97 Conn. - 703, 118 A. 32 (1922)

Rule:

While it is undoubtedly true that a so-called "contract" for the sale of goods in which the buyer retains an unconditional option of cancellation, is no contract at all, since no mutuality exists, yet if the seller has the right under the contract, for however brief a period, to make a delivery and compel the buyer to take and pay for the goods, there is a promise for a promise and thus a sufficient consideration moving to the seller to make a valid contract in law.

Facts:

When the defendant glass company failed to deliver an order, the plaintiff customer brought suit to recover damages for breach of a written agreement based on an increase in the market price. The defendant claimed that the contract was void for want of mutuality because its acceptance was unconditional and the plaintiff reserved the right to cancel it at will. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the contract in question void for want of mutuality, thereby justifying the court’s decision to sustain the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed on appeal, holding that the company may have had a right to enforce the customer's promise to buy, and if so, there was sufficient consideration to bring the contract into existence. The court noted that if the company voluntarily limited the absolute opportunity of enforcing the contract it was not void for want of consideration.