Before MARIS and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
The plaintiff brought suit in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to recover damages for breach of a written contract entered into between the defendant and S. R. Taylor trading as S. R. Taylor Co. The plaintiff is the assignee of S. R. Taylor Co. The district court dismissed the complaint. The primary question in controversy is whether a contract was made. The plaintiff contends that the court was not justified in its conclusion that there was no contract and was in error in dismissing the complaint upon this ground. On the other hand, the defendant urges that the order of the district court dismissing the complaint was proper not only because no contract was made but also because the contract, if it be concluded that there was one, was so indefinite and incomplete as to be unenforceable and because it was non-assignable.
We turn first to the question whether there was a contract. The plaintiff relies upon two written instruments which it has attached to its complaint as exhibits. Exhibit "A," which contains the offer, reads:
"Canonsburg Pottery Company
"We will deliver to S. R. Taylor Co. two cars of dinnerware per week of sample patterns - barring all strikes or acts of God under which we have no control. To begin approx. Sept. 1st. Patterns & packaging and shipments as selected. We will deliver on this basis for a period of a year and any extension to complete contract obligations of S. R. Taylor Co.
"Prices as agreed today August 6th as follows:
"No. 115-A-2 - 108 pc. set 10.40
"No. 1608 - 108 pc. set 12.36
"Flora - 108 pc. set 12.36
"Dorthea - 108 pc. set 13.74
"1584-H or 1584-J - 108 pc. set 14.34
"Moss Rose - 108 pc. set 14.17
"539-H - Service Plate 5.25
"539-H - Service Plate W/5.40
"All above prices are plus packing charge -
"(s) Canonsburg Pottery Co.