Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: CONSTITUTION OF THE CONTRACT 5 covered," took the policy, got an assignment of it to the owner and the assent of the insurance company thereto and some weeks later returned it to the owner, who accepted it. A month later the automobile was destroyed by fire. The owner sued the insurance company, alleging that the company made an oral contract with the plaintiff to issue a valid policy of insurance against fire on the automobile, and that it had failed to issue such a policy. It was not contended that there could be recovery on the policy, because, since the assignor of it had no interest in the automobile on the date of the policy or at any time thereafter, the policy was void and the assignment transferred nothing to the plaintiff. It was held that the owner could not recover upon an oral agreement to insure, because such oral agreement expired when the owner accepted the policy, and also because an agreement to "cover" the owner remains in force only for a reasonable time after the acceptance of the policy, and such reasonable time had expired before the fire. Mowles v. Boston Insurance Co. (1917) 226 Mass. 426, 115 N. E. 666. § 5. Necessity for Acceptance or Approval of Application. —An application for automobile insurance is not itself a contract, but is merely a proposal, which requires acceptance by the insurance company through someone actually or apparently authorized to accept it, to give it effect as a contract. Where an application for insurance provides that the policy shall take effect on the day the application is approved, if it is not approved, there is no contract of insurance. When, however, such application is approved by the .company, the insurance thus applied for and paid for becomes effective, constituting a contract which neither party can change w... --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.