Drennan v star paving co. Video of Drennan v. Star Paving Co. 2019-01-05

Drennan v star paving co Rating: 9,8/10 1708 reviews

Drennan v. Star Paving Co.

drennan v star paving co

Posted by on Jul 26, 2011 in , Contract law has express warranties and implied warranties. 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. It was not so raised and was therefore waived. 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. On the contrary it is reasonable to suppose that defendant submitted its bid to obtain the subcontract. Nor can he reopen bargaining with the subcontractor and at the same time claim a continuing right to accept the original offer. Defendant had reason to expect that if its bid proved the lowest it would be used by plaintiff.


Next

Law School Case Briefs

drennan v star paving co

It was not so raised and was therefore waived. On his way to Los Angeles the next morning plaintiff stopped at defendant's office. P was awarded the contract that evening. Late in the afternoon, Mrs. It was not so raised and was therefore waived. The Bard case held that an option not supported by consideration was revoked by the death of the optionor.

Next

Drennan v. Star Paving Co. :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia

drennan v star paving co

Defendant's was the lowest bid for the paving. Whether or not these considerations alone would justify recovery for negligence had the case been tried on that theory. Thus the question is squarely presented: Did plaintiff's reliance make defendant's offer irrevocable? Express Warranty is found in Section 313 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Hoon, an estimator for defendant. He was immediately told that the bid placed by Star Paving was a mistake.


Next

Drennan v. Star Paving Co., 333 P.2d 757 (1958) โ€” Illustrated Law

drennan v star paving co

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. In addition, she sold and listed enough property to qualify for all three bonus levels. Moreover, merely acting in justifiable reliance on an offer may in some cases serve as sufficient reason for making a promise binding see ยง 90. Moreover, it was motivated by its own business interest. 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.

Next

Drennan v. Star Paving Co. (1958)

drennan v star paving co

The first person he met was defendant's construction engineer, Mr. Clearly he acted reasonably to mitigate damages. Defendant had reason not only to expect plaintiff to rely on its bid but to want him to. 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. Posted by on Aug 17, 2011 in , Case Name: Cook v.

Next

Law School Case Briefs

drennan v star paving co

As was customary, Drennan solicited bids from subcontractors to perform the paving work necessary for the project. Don't believe me, check out: I have often tried to make the cases available as links in case you are a student without a textbook. 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. Reasonable reliance serves to hold the offeror in lieu of the consideration ordinarily required to make the offer binding. Johnson, received by telephone between 50 and 75 subcontractors' bids for various parts of the school job. Moreover, it was motivated by its own business interest.

Next

Drennan v. Star Paving Co.

drennan v star paving co

On the contrary it is reasonable to suppose that defendant submitted its bid to obtain the subcontract. Drennan won the contract to build the Monte Vista Elementary School for the based on that bid. 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. And I would have to go and do the job according to my bid and I would expect them to do the same. It was silent on revocation, however, and we must therefore determine whether there are conditions to the right of revocation imposed by law or reasonably inferable in fact. Defendant's was the lowest bid for the paving.

Next

Law School Case Briefs

drennan v star paving co

Reasoning: For consideration we do not care about the adequacy or the disparity in. Plaintiff computed his own bid accordingly and submitted it with the name of defendant as the subcontractor for the paving. Thus the question is squarely presented: Did plaintiff's reliance make defendant's offer irrevocable? Reasoning: This contract was determined to be unilateral because performance was based on the wish of the parties. The plaintiff won the contract and promptly informed the defendant in person. Procedural History: In December, 1992 the plaintiff filed an action against defendant for breach of a bonus contract and sought damages. Plaintiff computed his own bid accordingly and submitted it with the name of defendant as the subcontractor for the paving. After finding an alternative subcontractor to complete the job, Drennan sued Star Paving for the difference between its bid and the cost.

Next

Drennan v. Star Paving Co. Case Brief

drennan v star paving co

Merely acting in justifiable reliance on an offer may in some cases serve as sufficient reason for making a promise binding Restatement First 90. Court Ruling The case was ruled that the defendant was bound to realize the substantial possibility that its bid would be the lowest of the bunch, and that it would be included by the plaintiff in his bid, making it irrevocable. By on February 15, 2018 in General Contractor vs. 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. He committed himself to performing the main contract in reliance on defendant's figures. Late in the afternoon, Mrs.


Next

Drennan v. Star Paving Co.

drennan v star paving co

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. 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. Whether or not these considerations alone would justify recovery for negligence had the case been tried on that theory see Biakanja v. Defendant had reason to expect that if its bid proved the lowest it would be used by plaintiff. Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law. Bids had to be submitted before 8 p. Disposition โ€” Affirmed Notes School district v.

Next