intended his agreement to purchase constituted assent to a contract. In this situation, the contract would be implied by conduct.
B may have the opportunity to argue that if he does not accept the goods, then his conduct does not imply a contract. In prior situations, his acceptance of the goods implied the contract by conduct but this situation differed in that he did not accept the goods. Ultimately, this would come down to the court's interpretation of whether a reasonable person in the position of the offeree would have understood that the offeror intended to be bound. For example if at some point in the relationship B. had stated clearly to a that no contract existed until the goods had been received, then a in this case would have no reason to believe that a contract existed in this case.
In this situation, if the nails were not yet delivered to B, and history showed that B's conduct implied...
B has effectively canceled the agreement by waiving the deal prior to a's delivery of the consideration. It is unlikely under the circumstances described that a contract would exist between a and B. In this situation. It is possible that a could prove the existence of the contract, but highly unlikely.
The situation hinges on whether or not an offer has been made by B. It sounds as if the nails were not yet delivered by a, which would rule out the likelihood of a contract implied by conduct. Without that means of creating a contract, there is no contract, as no formal offer was made and no offer can be reasonably inferred by a at this point.
Works Cited:
Larson, a. (2003). Contract law -- an introduction. ExpertLaw. Retrieved April 30, 2010 from http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_law.html
