-116-
Wall Paper & Paint Co., 63 F.2d 701, 702 (3d Cir. 1933) (as
offer “contained no time limitation for acceptance, it was
incumbent upon the plaintiff to accept within a reasonable
time”); Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R. Co. v. Columbus Rolling-
Mill Co., 119 U.S. 149, 151 (1886) (“[i]f the offer does not
limit the time for its acceptance, it must be accepted within a
reasonable time”).
I’m not saying that we need to canvass contract law to
construe the Code, only suggesting that the observation that
Congress used the word “manner” without specifying “time” is not
the end of the argument. The context in which the word occurs
suggests that imputation of a reasonable time limit is not a
departure from the ordinary legal meaning of the word--any more
than imputation of a reasonable delivery time in a contract for
delivery of specified goods, 1 Restatement, Contracts 2d sec. 33
(1981), or imputation of a reasonable time for closing a
conveyance of property, 1 Restatement, Property (Mortgages) 3d
sec. 7.2 (1997) would be. And before today, I knew of no place
in the Code where a Court has held that “manner” without “time”
means “anytime at all.”
The reason for imputing some time limits on filing returns
or making elections is one of practical necessity. And this is
where the majority’s invocation of Anglo-American is so
unintentionally radical, because the second problem with its
Page: Previous 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011