This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Drennan v. Star Paving: Difference between revisions
m (DeRien moved page Drennan v. Star Paving Co. to Drennan v. Star Paving: shorten) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=December 31, 1958 | |date=December 31, 1958 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=Defendant bid on a job for Plaintiff, which accepted Defendant's bid (it was the cheapest bid). | |facts=Mr. Drennan was a contractor looking for a sub-contractor to help him win a local school's construction project. | ||
Each sub-contractor would submit a bid to fulfill a portion of the contract. Drennan would use those bids to put together his overall bid to the school. | |||
Defendant (Star Paving company; "Star Paving") bid on a job for Plaintiff ("Drennan), which accepted Defendant's bid (it was the cheapest bid for $7,000). | |||
The school hired Drennan to complete the construction. | |||
Star Paving then said that its bid was a mistake and wasn't supposed to be so low. Suddenly, Star Paving said his sub-contract needed $15,000 for fulfillment. | |||
Drennan was forced to seek new bids. | |||
|issues=Can Plaintiff seek, as damages, the difference between Defendant's initial winning bid and how much Plaintiff was eventually required to pay? | |issues=Can Plaintiff seek, as damages, the difference between Defendant's initial winning bid and how much Plaintiff was eventually required to pay? | ||
|holding=Yes, Plaintiff is entitled to damages. Defendant's bid is enforceable under [[promissory estoppel]]. Defendant had reason to expect Plaintiff to rely on the bid. | |holding=Yes, Plaintiff is entitled to damages. Defendant's bid is enforceable under [[promissory estoppel]]. Defendant had reason to expect Plaintiff to rely on the bid. | ||
Line 22: | Line 32: | ||
}} | }} | ||
''Drennan v. Star Paving Co.'', 51 Cal. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (Cal. 1958). | ''Drennan v. Star Paving Co.'', 51 Cal. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (Cal. 1958). | ||
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]] | [[Category:Cases:Contracts]] |
Revision as of 14:35, July 14, 2023
Drennan v. Star Paving | |
Court | California Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | December 31, 1958 |
Facts
Mr. Drennan was a contractor looking for a sub-contractor to help him win a local school's construction project.
Each sub-contractor would submit a bid to fulfill a portion of the contract. Drennan would use those bids to put together his overall bid to the school.
Defendant (Star Paving company; "Star Paving") bid on a job for Plaintiff ("Drennan), which accepted Defendant's bid (it was the cheapest bid for $7,000).
The school hired Drennan to complete the construction.
Star Paving then said that its bid was a mistake and wasn't supposed to be so low. Suddenly, Star Paving said his sub-contract needed $15,000 for fulfillment.
Drennan was forced to seek new bids.Issues
Holding
Rule
Case Text Links
Drennan v. Star Paving Co., 51 Cal. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (Cal. 1958).