Also known as: puts out · putting out · put-out
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A rule of strict products liability under which a seller that markets a chattel manufactured by another under its own name or branding assumes the same liability as the actual manufacturer. The rule focuses on the seller's presentation of the product to users rather than on the seller's role in fabrication or design.
A rule of strict products liability under which a seller that markets a chattel manufactured by another under its own name or branding assumes the same liability as the actual manufacturer. The rule focuses on the seller's presentation of the product to users rather than on the seller's role in fabrication or design.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A principle of contract formation under which an acceptance made in a manner and medium invited by an offer becomes operative and completes mutual assent as soon as the offeree puts it out of possession. The rule fixes the moment of contract formation at dispatch without regard to receipt by the offeror.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A principle of contract formation under which an acceptance made in a manner and medium invited by an offer becomes operative and completes mutual assent as soon as the offeree puts it out of possession. The rule fixes the moment of contract formation at dispatch without regard to receipt by the offeror.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
OrthoLine Medical purchased generic hip implants from Apex Metals. OrthoLine stamped the implants with its own name and logo and marketed them to hospitals as OrthoLine products. A patient received an implant that fractured due to a design defect. The patient sued OrthoLine under strict products liability. Because OrthoLine put the implant out as its own product, the court treated OrthoLine as the manufacturer and imposed the same strict liability for the defect.
BrightMart sold house-brand pain reliever tablets labeled only with its own name and logo. A customer suffered liver damage from contamination in the tablets and sued BrightMart on strict products liability. Because BrightMart put the tablets out as its own product, the court held BrightMart subject to the same strict liability as the actual manufacturer for the defect.
Tri-State Building Supply purchased prefabricated steel beams from Apex Steel. Tri-State removed all Apex markings, applied its own Tri-State Structural brand, and marketed the beams as part of its proprietary framing system. A worker was injured when a defective beam collapsed. Because Tri-State put the beams out as its own product, the court treated Tri-State as the manufacturer for strict products liability purposes.
A seller puts a product out as its own when it brands, labels, or markets the chattel under its own name in a way that leads reasonable users to believe the seller is the manufacturer. Exclusive labeling, removal of the actual manufacturer's marks, and promotional materials claiming the product as the seller's own brand satisfy the requirement.
Supporting sources
No. The rule imposes manufacturer-level strict liability once the seller puts the product out as its own, regardless of whether the seller designed the product, inspected it, or had any role in production. The focus remains on the seller's outward presentation to consumers.
Supporting sources
Point Scholar mailed Jane an offer for a tenure-track position and invited acceptance by signing and returning the form by mail. Jane signed the form and deposited the acceptance in the mail the next morning. Point Scholar later attempted to rescind the offer after receiving a negative reference. Jane's acceptance became effective upon mailing, so the attempted rescission arrived too late to prevent contract formation.
Black Indemnity mailed Beverly an offer to renew her homeowners policy and invited acceptance by signing and returning the form by March 1. Beverly signed the form and deposited it in the mail on March 1. The envelope was lost in transit and never reached Black Indemnity. Beverly's acceptance became effective upon mailing, so the policy renewed before the fire loss occurred.
Ridge Patient mailed First Clinic an offer to purchase an ultrasound machine and expressly authorized acceptance by mail or fax without requiring receipt. First Clinic prepared and mailed a signed acceptance the same morning. Ridge Patient later sent a revocation email that First Clinic received before the acceptance letter arrived. First Clinic's acceptance became effective upon mailing, forming a binding contract before the revocation took effect.
The mailbox rule makes an acceptance effective upon dispatch when the offer invites acceptance by mail or a similar medium. The acceptance completes mutual assent as soon as the offeree puts it out of possession, even if the letter is lost or delayed and never reaches the offeror.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the offer invites acceptance by mail, the offeree may use that authorized medium even if a faster authorized method exists. Dispatch by mail still renders the acceptance effective under the rule.
Supporting sources
…a statute declared that "it is contained in the Great Charter of the Franchises of England, that none shall be imprisoned nor put out of his Freehold, nor of his Franchises nor free Custom, unless it be by the Law of the Land . . . ."[^maj-18] Four years later another statute provided "[t]hat no Man of what Estate or…