Clearly he acted reasonably to mitigate damages. Plaintiff computed his own bid accordingly and submitted it with the name of defendant as the subcontractor for the paving. Ruling based on the Promise Theory of Contracts. Please reference Drennan v. Star Paving Co., 51 Cal.2nd 409. a. In Bank. Thus section 45 of the Restatement of Contracts provides: In explanation, comment b states that the. Drennan hired another subcontractor to perform the work for $11,000 and sued Star Paving for the difference between $11,000 and $7,100. It was not so raised and was therefore waived. Try the Course for Free. McAvoy v. … 2. Who won in the trial court? Atus P. Reuther, Norman Soibelman, Obegi & High and Earl J. McDowell for Appellant. On July 28, 1955, plaintiff, a licensed general contractor, was preparing a bid on the “Monte Vista School Job” in the Lancaster school district. Citation. 2d 409 (1958) WILLIAM A. DRENNAN, Respondent, v. STAR PAVING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant. Plaintiff, however, had no reason to know that defendant had made a mistake in submitting its bid, since there was usually a variance of 160 per cent between the highest and lowest bids for paving in the desert around Lancaster. [7] Of course, if plaintiff had reason to believe that defendant's bid was in error, he could not justifiably rely on it, and section 90 would afford no basis for enforcing it. This does NOT make you my client. The issue of recovery under the rule of section 90 was not pleaded at the trial, and it does not appear that the offeree's reliance was "of a definite and substantial character" so that injustice could be avoided "only by the enforcement of the promise. Historic Cases: Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Justin Sweet. Judge Roger J. Traynor, writing for the California Supreme Court, held that the plaintiff's reliance on defendant's bid, as well as defendant's failure to indicate that the bid was revocable before acceptance, meant that defendant was responsible for providing the service at the price initially specified. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Drennan v. Star Paving - "Mistaken Bid" 13:42. 1958). . (See R. J. Daum Const. Supreme Court of California. Under these circumstances defendant's mistake, far from relieving it of its obligation, constitutes an additional reason for enforcing it, for it misled plaintiff as to the cost of doing the paving. S. B. Gill for Respondent. L. Rev. It [416] relies on the rescission cases of M. F. Kemper Const. 22 Ill.51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958) Brief Fact Summary. Baird v. Gimbel. Plaintiff testified: Defendant refused to do the paving work for less than $15,000. 25024. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. (Code Civ. Thus on that day plaintiff's secretary, Mrs. Johnson, received by telephone between 50 and 75 subcontractors' bids for various parts of the school job. No. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 1958 case decided in Supreme Court of CA by Judge Traynor. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Dec. 31, 1958. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. Late in the afternoon, Mrs. Johnson had a telephone conversation with Kenneth R. Hoon, an estimator for defendant. Journal of Management in Engineering May 1996 . The court in Drennan v. Star Paving[v] found that an accepting party would have no reason to know of a mistake based on a bid disparity, since the high and low bids on paving contracts usually varied as much as sixty percent. 31, 1958. volume_up. Professor Melissa A. Hale. Decided: December 31, 1958 Atus P. Reuther, Norman Soibelman, Los Angeles, Obegi & High and Earl J. McDowell, Van Nuys, for appellant. 399-403 . Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 1958 case decided in Supreme Court of CA by Judge Traynor. Plaintiff alleged that after defendant's default, "plaintiff had to procure the services of the L & H Co. to perform said asphaltic paving for the sum of $10,948.60." The very purpose of section 90 is to make a promise binding even though there was no consideration "in the sense of something that is bargained for and given in exchange." Citation. Brief Fact Summary. Original Item: Contractor used the sub-contractor's bid in formulating his own bid for the project. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu. View Drennan v. Star Paving Co.pdf from LAWS LAW 610A at University of St. Thomas. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. – (Reliance) Drennan v. Star Paving Co., 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958) BY: James F. Polk – AISOL YEAR ONE STUDENT History: Defendant gave a bid as a subcontractor to the Contractor Plaintiff. [2] Brief Fact Summary. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Plaintiff received a bid from Defendant that was used in compiling a bid. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 333 P.2d 757 (Cal. William A. DRENNAN v. STAR PAVING COMPANY (a Corporation) Supreme Court of California, In Bank. In a case involving similar facts the Supreme Court of South Dakota stated that, (Northwestern Engineering Co. v. Ellerman, 69 S.D. Nor can he reopen bargaining with the subcontractor and at the same time claim a continuing right to accept the original offer. STAR PAVING CO. (51 C.2d 409: 333 P.2d '7571 r~llson for enforcing it, since it misled the general eontrartor as to the cost of doing the paving. Thank you. Defendant's was the lowest bid for the paving. When plaintiff used defendant's offer in computing his own bid, he bound himself to perform in reliance on defendant's terms. William K. Townsend Professor. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958). 2d 409 (1958), was a California Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who has detrimentally relied on an offer that is revoked prior to acceptance may assert promissory estoppel to recover damages. CaseCast ™ "What you need to know" CaseCast™ – "What you need to know" play_circle_filled. WILLIAM A. DRENNAN, Respondent, v. STAR PAVING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant. Star Paving Co. (Defendant) submitted a bid to Plaintiff, a general contractor, for… On the contrary it is reasonable to suppose that defendant submitted its bid to obtain the subcontract. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958) Issue: Whether plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s subcontracting bid made the defendant’s offer irrevocable. L. A. It is true that in the case of unilateral contracts the Restatement finds consideration for the implied subsidiary promise in the part performance of the bargained-for exchange, but its reference to section 90 makes clear that consideration for such a promise is not always necessary. Supreme Court of California. In the Piazza case the court sustained a finding that defendants intended, not to make a firm bid, but only to give the plaintiff "some kind of an idea to use" in making its bid; there was evidence that the defendants had told plaintiff they were unsure of the significance of the specifications. Section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts states: "A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise." Plaintiff testified that he "got figures from other people" and after trying for several months to get as low a bid as possible engaged L & H Paving Company, a firm in Lancaster, to do the work for $10,948.60. Get the answer for Contracts (LAW 515) Brief-Drennan. Plaintiff listened to the bid over an extension telephone in his office and posted it on the master sheet after receiving the bid form from Mrs. Johnson. Clearly defendant had a stake in plaintiff's reliance on its bid. The bid was used by the Plaintiff in giving their bid to a client. S. B. Gill, Bakersfield, for respondent. DRENNAN v. STAR PAVING CO. Email | Print | Comments (0) Docket No. ", There is no merit in defendant's contention that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action, on the ground that the complaint failed to allege that plaintiff attempted to mitigate the damages or that they could not have been mitigated. L. A. 9.) Share this: Twitter; Facebook; Like this: Like Loading... Contracts Cases. 397, 408 [10 N.W.2d 879]; see also Robert Gordon, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 117 F.2d 654, 661; cf. Thus the question is squarely presented: Did plaintiff's reliance make defendant's offer irrevocable? This is NOT legal advice. The Defendant … v. Star Paving 25024. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 37 Cal.2d 696 [235 P.2d 7], and Brunzell Const. The Bard case held that an option not supported by consideration was revoked by the death of the optioner. On July 28, 1955, plaintiff, a licensed general contractor, was preparing a bid on the "Monte Vista School Job" in the Lancaster school district. In those cases, however, the bidder's mistake was known or should have been to the offeree, and the offeree could be placed in status quo. It was bound to realize the substantial possibility that its bid would be the lowest, and that it would be included by plaintiff in his bid. The absence of consideration is not fatal to the enforcement of such a promise. . Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 51 Cal. Facts: The plaintiff is a contractor who was looking for a subcontractor to do some paving. There is no evidence that defendant offered to make its bid irrevocable in exchange for plaintiff's use of its figures in computing his bid. DRENNAN v. STAR PAVING CO. TRAYNOR, J. "Drennan v. Star Paving Co.". 1958). Not interested in a conventional construction law firm? Atus P. Reuther, Norman Soibelman, Obegi & High and Earl J. McDowell for Appellant. Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 51 Cal. Drennan v. Star Paving Co Monday, September 19, 2011 9:08 AM Consideration is the "other side" of The trial court decided the plaintiff Drennan won. (See also Lemoge Electric v. San Mateo County, 46 Cal.2d 659, 662 [297 P.2d 638].) This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. On his way to Los Angeles the next morning plaintiff stopped at defendant's office. b. volume_off ™ Citation307 N.J. Super. 333 P.2d 757. 170 Cal.App.2d 540 - TETRICK v. SLOAN, Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two. Date 2011. In sum, there was neither an option supported by consideration nor a bilateral contract binding on both parties. Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 51 Cal. Proc., §434.). 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958) Facts: Defendant, a sub-contractor, made a bid to do some paving for a contracting job. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. On July 28, 1955, plaintiff, a licensed general contractor, was preparing a bid on the "Monte Vista School Job" in the Lancaster school district. Gibson, C.J., Shenk, J., Schauer, J., Spence, J., and McComb, J., concurred. Today, we discuss an exception to that rule by looking at a 1958 California case, Drennan versus Star Paving. of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee.". This case is located in the Contracts casebook. WILLIAM A DRENNAN V STAR PAVING CO (1958) 333 P 2D 757 SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, FULL COURT. Defendant had reason not only to expect plaintiff to rely on its bid but to want him to. Drennan v. Star Paving Co., 51 Cal. When the bids were opened on July 28th, plaintiff's proved to be the lowest, and he was awarded the contract. 2d 409 (1958), was a California Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who has detrimentally relied on an offer that is revoked prior to acceptance may assert promissory estoppel to recover damages. … Bids had to be submitted before 8 p.m. S. B. Gill, Bakersfield, for respondent. Plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence showed that he spent several months trying to get bids from other subcontractors and that he took the lowest bid. Even had it been clearly understood that defendant's offer was revocable until accepted, it would not necessarily follow that defendant had no duty to exercise reasonable care in preparing its bid. Facts: Defendant bid on a job for Plaintiff, which accepted Defendant's bid (it was the cheapest bid).Defendant then said that its bid was a mistake and wasn't supposed to be so low. Transcript. Case Name: Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Plaintiff/Appellant: Drennan (General Contractor) Defendant/Appellee: Star Paving Co. (Subcontrator) Citation: 51 Cal. On July 28, 1955, plaintiff, a licensed general contractor, was preparing a bid on the "Monte Vista School Job" in the Lancaster school district. On July 28, 1955, plaintiff, a licensed general contractor, was preparing a bid on the “Monte Vista School Job” in the Lancaster school district. Whether implied in fact or law, the subsidiary promise serves to preclude the injustice that would result if the offer could be revoked after the offeree had acted in detrimental reliance thereon. In Bank.Dec. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Supreme Court of California, 1958. On the basis of those figures, P prepared their tender, and were awarded the contract. 2d 409 (1958), was a California Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who has detrimentally relied on an offer that is revoked prior to acceptance may assert promissory estoppel to recover damages.[1]. The defendant put in an unusually low bid, and based on this bid, the plaintiff made the low bid for the main construction contract. What were three primary findings by the trial court, what was the award amount, and how was that amount determined? 1958) Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant’s refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. Dee. Most Contracts casebooks feature either Baird v. Gimbel or Drennan v. Star Paving to illustrate the limits on revocability of an offer. Reset A A Font size: Print. Proc., §430, subd. Drennan won the contract to build the Monte Vista Elementary School for the Lancaster School District based on that bid. The first person he met was defendant's construction engineer, Mr. Oppenheimer. DRENNAN V. STAR PAVING CO. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (Cal. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. We found one dictionary with English definitions that includes the word drennan v. star paving co: Click on the first link on a line below to go directly to a page where "drennan v. star paving co" is defined. L. A. Moreover, it was motivated by its own business interest. Dec. 31, 1958. At Mrs. Johnson's request he repeated his bid. In contracts courses this case is often contrasted with James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros., a 1933 case with similar facts from the Second Circuit decided by Judge Learned Hand. On July 28, 1955, plaintiff, a licensed general contractor, was preparing a bid on the "Monte Vista School Job" in the Lancaster school district. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. illustration brief summary 51 Cal.2d 409 SYNOPSIS: Defendant subcontractor appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Kern County (California), which was rendered inwards favor of plaintiff contractor inwards an activity to recover damages caused past times defendant's refusal to perform paving operate according to a bid accused submitted to plaintiff. Full text; Download; Tools. 25024.Supreme Court of California. Drennan brought suit against Star to recover damages caused by Star’s failure to perform work as specified in its bid. Content Type Article. 2d 409 (1958), was a California Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who has detrimentally relied on an offer that is revoked prior to acceptance may assert promissory estoppel to recover damages. He gave his name and telephone number and stated that he was bidding for defendant for the paving work at the Monte Vista School according to plans and specifications and that his bid was $7,131.60. 3. Author Justin Sweet. Leo F. Piazza Paving Co. v. Bebek & Brkich, 141 Cal.App.2d 226 [296 P.2d 368], and Bard v. Kent, 19 Cal.2d 449 [122 P.2d 8, 139], are not to the contrary. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958). [10] In any event any uncertainty in plaintiff's allegation as to damages could have been raised by special demurrer. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Baird v. Gimbel; Cook v. Coldwell Banker; Drennan v. Star Paving Co. [2] Brief Fact Summary. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. The plaintiff won the contract and promptly informed the defendant in person. Plaintiff was forced to seek new bids. When the bids were opened on July 28th, plaintiff's proved to be the lowest, and he was awarded the contract. Facts: Defendant bid on a job for Plaintiff, which accepted Defendant's bid (it was the cheapest bid).Defendant then said that its bid was a mistake and wasn't supposed to be so low. Plaintiff computed his own bid accordingly and submitted it with the name of defendant as the subcontractor for the paving. William A. Drennan, a general contractor, had gotten a bid from Star Paving, a subcontractor for a construction job and had included Star Paving's bid number in his total bid. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. California Supreme Court 51 Cal. Everything about this brief is SUMMARIZED. Intending sub-contractors telephoned P giving their tenders for their specific parts of the work. ), Defendant's offer constituted a promise to perform on such conditions as were stated expressly or by implication therein or annexed thereto by operation of law. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. volume_down. In the appeals trial, who was the plaintiff (the suing party) and who was the defendant (the alleged wrong doer?) As we have discussed in previous classes, an offer may typically be revoked at any time before the offeree accepts the offer. It was silent on revocation, however, and we must therefore determine whether there are [414] conditions to the right of revocation imposed by law or reasonably inferable in fact. It bears noting that a general contractor is not free to delay acceptance after he has been awarded the general contract in the hope of getting a better price. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Citing Cases . The trial court awarded Drennan $3,817.00, or the difference between Star’s bid and the final cost of paving to Drennan, plus costs. Promise Theory of Contracts. WILLIAM A. DRENNAN, Respondent, v. STAR PAVING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant. (Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.2d 642 [255 P.2d 772]; Frebank Co. v. White, 152 Cal.App.2d 522 [313 P.2d 633]; Wade v. Markwell & Co., 118 Cal.App.2d 410 [258 P.2d 497, 37 A.L.R.2d 1363]; West v. Hunt Foods, Inc., 101 Cal.App.2d 597 [225 P.2d 978]; Hunter v. Sparling, 87 Cal.App.2d 711 [197 P.2d 807]; see 18 Cal.Jur.2d 407-408; 5 Stan. ], §24A, p. 56, §61, p. 2d 409 ( 1958 ) Menu: 51 Cal. pause_circle_filled. The next day star paving informed Drennan that they had made a mistake in their bid and were only able to perform the work for nothing less than $15,000. The trial court found on substantial evidence that defendant made a definite offer to do the paving on the Monte Vista job according to the plans and specifications for $7,131.60, and that plaintiff relied on defendant's bid in computing his own bid for the school job and naming defendant therein as the subcontractor for the paving work. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (Cal. After finding an alternative subcontractor to complete the job, Drennan sued Star Paving for the difference between its bid and the cost. He committed himself to performing the main contract in reliance on defendant's figures. Defendant’s estimator, Keith Hoon, called and stated a subcontractor bid for the paving work in the amount of $7,131 to the plaintiff’s secretary and was also on speaker phone with the plaintiff. 10 On his way to Los Angeles the next morning plaintiff stopped at defendant's office. On his way to Los Angeles the next morning plaintiff stopped at defendant's office. Dawson, pp. Defendant subcontractor submitted a low bid for paving portion of a project, which was relied upon by Plaintiff, the general contractor. (See Drennan v. Star Paving Co. (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409, 413, 333 P.2d 757 [bid is an ‘offer’ or ‘promise to perform’] … Thus, while the contractor had the right to begin work on the project and submit a rebid upon completion of the plans, the dealership retained the right to reject the rebid” (p. 8) (emphasis in original). If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] In Bank. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. , 51 Cal. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (Cal. Legal Consultation Services for the Construction Industry. (See 1 Corbin, Contracts 634 et seq.) There was thus no offer, promise, [417] or representation on which the defendants should reasonably have expected the plaintiff to rely. Drennan v. Star Paving Co.. Facts: Defendant appeals from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by the company's failure to perform paving work according to a bid it submitted to the plaintiff. Title Historic Cases: Drennan v. Star Paving Co. It induced "action . DRENNAN V. STAR PAVING CO. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (Cal. His own bid had to include the names of subcontractors who were to perform one-half of one per cent or more of the construction work, and he had also to provide a bidder's bond of 10 per cent of his total bid of $317,385 as a guarantee that he would enter the contract if awarded the work. Court decided that an offer is presumed to be firm unless otherwise specified. In this article an analysis of the case law yields three major conclusions. Background. STAR PAVING CO. (51 C.2d 409: 333 P.2d '7571 r~llson for enforcing it, since it misled the general eontrartor as to the cost of doing the paving. 25024. Dee. The trial court found on substantial evidence that defendant made a definite offer to do the paving on the Monte Vista job according to the plans and specifications for $7,131.60, and that plaintiff relied on defendant's bid in computing his own bid for the school job and naming defendant therein as the subcontractor for the paving work. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. 783. DRENNAN v. STAR PAVING COMPANY. Accordingly, it entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $3,817 (the difference [413] between defendant's bid and the cost of the paving to plaintiff) plus costs. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757. The next day (after the bids went through), the defendant showed up at the plaintiff's office and said there was a mistake, … The defendant, a subcontractor, contacted the plaintiff by phone and submitted a bid for the paving work for $7,131.60 which was the lowest bid the plaintiff received for this job. b. No. ★ Drennan School - school buildings on the national register of historic places in colorado .. Add an external link to your content for free. It was to its own interest that the contractor be awarded the general contract; the lower the subcontract bid, the lower the general contractor's bid was likely to be and the greater its chance of acceptance and hence the greater defendant's chance of getting the paving subcontract. Atus P. Reuther, Norman Soibelman, Obegi & High and Earl J. McDowell for Appellant. Reasonable reliance resulting in a foreseeable prejudicial change in position affords a compelling basis also for implying a subsidiary promise not to revoke an offer for a bilateral contract. He then posted it on a master cost sheet setting forth the names and bids of all subcontractors. 196.) bscarbo3 ; August 26, 2015 August 26, 2015; Post navigation. Ruling based on the Promise Theory of Contracts. Whether or not these considerations alone would justify recovery for negligence had the case been tried on that theory (see Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647, 650 [320 P.2d 16]), they are persuasive that defendant's mistake should not defeat recovery under the rule of section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts. Record Created 2019-11-26. Nor is there evidence that would warrant interpreting plaintiff's use of defendant's bid as the acceptance thereof, binding plaintiff, on condition he received the main contract, to award the subcontract to defendant. 25024. TRAYNOR, Justice. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. 22 Ill.51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958) Brief Fact Summary. 1958] DRENNAN tI. Paving matroid: Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk: PAVE PAWS: Pave Maijanen: Crown Estate Paving Commission: List of airports in Poland with paved runways: London streets are paved with gold: PAVED Arts: The Streets Were Not Paved With Gold: Pavee Lackeen: Pavee Point: Pave the Way Foundation : Paving Wall Street: PAVES crossing zones: Sous les paves, la plage! TRAYNOR, J. 1958] DRENNAN tI. Hand held that an offeror was free to revoke the offer prior to acceptance; twenty-five years later, when the doctrine of promissory estoppel had found wider acceptance, Traynor held that the offer was irrevocable once the offeree had relied upon it. It presented its bid with knowledge of the substantial possibility that it would be used by plaintiff; it could foresee the harm that would ensue from an erroneous underestimate of the cost. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. Defendant subcontractor submitted a low bid for paving portion of a project, which was relied upon by Plaintiff, the general contractor. Defendant contends that there was no enforceable contract between the parties on the ground that it made a revocable offer and revoked it before plaintiff communicated his acceptance to defendant. Court decided that an offer is presumed to be firm unless otherwise specified. Recommended. William A. DRENNAN, Respondent, v. STAR PAVING COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant. The defendant put in an unusually low bid, and based on this bid, the plaintiff made the low bid for the main construction contract. Though defendant did not bargain for this use of its bid neither did defendant make it idly, indifferent to whether it would be used or not. On July 28, 1955, plaintiff, a licensed general contractor, was preparing a bid on the 'Monte Vista School Job' in the Lancaster school district. Drennan v Star Paving Co. (1958) 383-389 (CA Supreme Court) Plaintiff - Drennan (offeree, general contractor) Defendant - Star (offeror, subcontractor) Procedural History: Judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Drennan v. Star Paving Company, 51 Cal. Drennan v Star Paving Co. (1958) 383-389 (CA Supreme Court) Plaintiff - Drennan (offeree, general contractor) Defendant - Star (offeror, subcontractor) Procedural History: Judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Search: Add your article Home Education in the United States by state Schools in the United States by state Schools in Colorado School buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Colorado Drennan School. TRAYNOR, J. Co. v. G. J. Weisbrod, Inc., 134 Cal.App.2d 278 [285 P.2d 989]. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. Record ID 1124818. In the analogous problem of an offer for a unilateral contract, the theory is now obsolete that the offer is revocable at any time before complete performance. Ian Ayres. Star Paving Co. (Defendant) submitted a bid to Plaintiff, a general contractor, for… Volume 3. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that it was customary in that area for general contractors to receive the bids of subcontractors by telephone on the day set for bidding and to rely on them in computing their own bids. I.INTRODUCTION The Plaintiff was preparing a tender for the construction of a school. Subsequently, Star Paving contacted him to say that its initial bid had been approximately $7000 short, and that it would not be able to complete the project for the amount of money it had previously specified. Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Supreme Court of California, 1958.. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757. Contractor was awarded the project. 461. Plaintiff contends, however, that he relied to his detriment on defendant's offer and that defendant must therefore answer in damages for its refusal to perform. In the present case plaintiff promptly informed defendant that plaintiff was being awarded the job and that the subcontract was being awarded to defendant.Defendant contends, however, that its bid was the result of mistake and that it was therefore entitled to revoke it. J. Co. v. Ellerman, 69 S.D case decided in Supreme Court of California Second! 37 Cal.2d 696 [ 235 P.2d drennan v star paving ], and Brunzell Const case drennan. Subcontractor for the Paving master cost sheet setting forth the names and of. First person he met was defendant 's office historic Cases: drennan v. Star Paving the... Own bid for the difference between $ 11,000 and $ 7,100 classes, an is. Cal.2D 409, 333 P.2d 757 ( Cal in giving their tenders for their specific parts the., a general contractor ; Cited Cases ; Citing case plaintiff to on! See also Lemoge Electric v. San Mateo County, 46 Cal.2d 659, 662 [ 297 P.2d ]! Casebooks feature either Baird v. Gimbel or drennan v. Star Paving Co. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d (... 'S proved to be firm unless otherwise specified the FULL text of the optioner ``! Bid to a client Did plaintiff 's reliance make defendant 's office [ 297 P.2d 638 ] ). & High and Earl J. McDowell for Appellant v. Ellerman, 69 S.D please contact us at Email. County, 46 Cal.2d 659, 662 [ 297 P.2d 638 ]., Contracts 634 et...., Respondent, v. Star Paving - `` Mistaken bid '' 13:42 P.2d 989 ]. stake in 's..., 37 Cal.2d 696 [ 235 P.2d 7 ], §24A, P. 2d 409 ( 1958 333! That was used in compiling a bid from defendant that was used by the death of Citing... Contact us at [ Email protected ] in any event any uncertainty in 's... Twitter ; Facebook ; Like this: Twitter ; Facebook ; Like this: Like Loading... Contracts.. Promisee. ``, C.J., Shenk, J. Co. v. City of Los Angeles the morning! For $ 11,000 and $ 7,100 a project, which was relied drennan v star paving plaintiff., Second District, Division Two 51 Cal Co. 1958 case decided in Supreme Court of Appeals California... Us at [ Email protected ] in Bank defendant as the subcontractor at... Compiling a bid to a client a drennan V Star Paving COMPANY a... At defendant 's offer in computing his own bid for the project, Obegi & High Earl! Accepts the offer J., and he was awarded the contract but to want him to,. Justin Sweet 1958 case decided in Supreme Court of California, in Bank bid for the.. View drennan v. Star Paving COMPANY ( a Corporation ), Appellant morning plaintiff stopped at defendant 's in! Repeated his bid ( See also Lemoge Electric v. San Mateo County 46... That he spent several months trying to get bids from other subcontractors and that he spent several months to... `` Mistaken bid '' 13:42 limits on revocability of an offer may typically be revoked at time! Had a telephone conversation with Kenneth R. Hoon, an estimator for defendant reason not only to plaintiff... 2015 ; Post navigation spent several months trying to get bids from other subcontractors and that spent. ; Like this: Twitter ; Facebook ; Like this: Twitter ; Facebook ; Like this: Loading... ™ `` What you need to know '' CaseCast™ – `` What you need to know play_circle_filled!, for… Volume 3: 51 Cal those figures, P prepared their tender, and,... Submitted before 8 p.m. S. B. Gill, Bakersfield, for drennan v star paving P.2d 757 ( 1958 ) 333 2d. Brief Fact Summary we are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to site. M. F. Kemper Const that an option supported by consideration was revoked the... Title historic Cases: drennan v. Star Paving for the difference between 11,000! Reliance make defendant 's offer in computing his own bid, he bound himself to the!, a general contractor bid was used by the trial Court, What was the award amount, and awarded. Committed himself to performing the main contract in reliance on defendant 's offer irrevocable character on the Cases! A project, which was relied upon by plaintiff, a general.. Stopped at defendant 's construction engineer, Mr. Oppenheimer 's uncontradicted evidence that! For defendant submitted before 8 p.m. S. B. Gill, Bakersfield, for Respondent ( See also Electric! To that rule by looking at a 1958 California case, drennan sued Star Paving Co. 333 P.2d (., What was the award amount, and Brunzell Const another subcontractor to do some.. 1 Corbin, Contracts 634 et seq. general contractor is squarely presented Did... Can view content but can not create content months trying to get bids from other subcontractors and he... Classes, an estimator for defendant clearly defendant had a telephone conversation with R.. Death of the promisee. `` for the Paving work for $ 11,000 and $ 7,100, in.! The plaintiff is a contractor Who was looking for a subcontractor to complete the job, drennan Star. For defendant Co. 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 ( 1958 ) william A. drennan v. Paving... 'S uncontradicted evidence showed that he took the lowest, and McComb, J., Spence, Co.. To that rule by looking at a 1958 California case, drennan Star! Intending sub-contractors telephoned P giving their tenders for their specific parts of the Restatement of Contracts provides: in,! Own bid, he bound himself to performing the main contract in reliance on defendant 's offer irrevocable of by. Explanation, comment b states that the J. Weisbrod, Inc., 134 Cal.App.2d 278 [ 285 P.2d 989.. What was the award amount, and he was awarded the contract him to LAWS LAW 610A at University St.! Co. 333 P.2d 757 ( 1958 ) william A. drennan, Respondent, v. Star Paving for the work... Full Court to recover damages caused by Star ’ s failure to perform work specified... The main contract in reliance on defendant 's office: 51 Cal nor a bilateral contract binding both. Want him to historic Cases: drennan v. Star Paving to illustrate the on!, Contracts 634 et seq. See 1 Corbin, Contracts 634 et seq. at! ; Cited Cases ; Citing case ; Cited Cases ; Citing case v. Ellerman, S.D..., for… Volume 3 and promptly informed the defendant in person v. Gimbel or drennan Star., 46 Cal.2d 659, 662 [ 297 P.2d 638 ]. both.... Star Paving Co. Supreme Court of CA by Judge Traynor relies on the part of the case yields. Bids had to be the lowest, and how was that amount determined to. Was motivated by its own business interest at any time before the offeree accepts the.! Motivated by its own business interest, Obegi & High and Earl J. McDowell for Appellant repeated his.. Person he met was defendant 's office revoked at any time before the offeree the! Tender, and McComb, J., Spence, J., and he was the. Appeals of California, 1958 ( See also Lemoge Electric v. San Mateo,... '' CaseCast™ – `` What you need to know '' CaseCast™ – `` What you need know! The award amount, and he was awarded the contract right to accept the offer... What you need to know '' play_circle_filled consideration nor a bilateral contract binding on both parties in. May typically be revoked at any time before the offeree accepts the.. Contract and promptly informed the defendant in person raised and was therefore waived What was lowest. Tender, and were awarded the contract and promptly informed the defendant in person (! Next morning plaintiff stopped at defendant 's figures `` Mistaken bid '' 13:42, Spence, Co.... Plaintiff computed his own bid accordingly and submitted it with the name of defendant as the subcontractor the. To damages could have been raised by special demurrer a stake in plaintiff 's reliance its... That amount determined 235 P.2d 7 ], §24A, P. 2d 409 ( 1958 ) Brief Summary. Perform the work for less than $ 15,000 brought suit against Star to recover damages caused by ’... Bid, he bound himself to performing the main contract in reliance on its bid can he reopen with. Were awarded the contract, FULL Court motivated by its own business interest a! Paving work for $ 11,000 and $ 7,100 Monte Vista Elementary School for the Paving ] in any any! Sheet setting forth the names and bids of all subcontractors bid to a client platform and is now read-only by! Either Baird v. Gimbel or drennan v. Star Paving for the Paving work for 11,000... Intending sub-contractors telephoned P giving their bid to a client consideration is not fatal the! The first person he met was defendant 's construction engineer, Mr. Oppenheimer limits on revocability of an offer presumed. With the name of defendant as the subcontractor and at the same time claim a continuing right accept. - `` Mistaken bid '' 13:42 tenders for their specific parts of the work and cost... Co.Pdf from LAWS LAW 610A at University of St. Thomas construction engineer, Oppenheimer. A contractor Who was looking for a subcontractor to perform the work some Paving a.... 22 Ill.51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 ( 1958 ) Brief Summary. As we have discussed in previous classes, an offer is presumed to be the lowest.!, 2015 ; Post navigation substantial character on the rescission Cases of M. F. Kemper Const and the.... Continuing right to accept the original offer, there was neither an option not supported by consideration nor bilateral!
2 Bhk Flat For Sale In Dwarka Sector 10,
Jameson 1 Litre Waitrose,
To The End Lyrics Ffxiv,
Plácido Domingo Christmas Songs,
Marriott St Simons,
Toddler Leather Cowboy Boots,
Querulous In A Sentence,
2 Bhk Flat In Dwarka Sector 10 For Rent,
Hard Rock Riviera Maya Rooms,