Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.'', 330 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. S. Ct. 1983). '''Facts''': Defendant used subcontractor Plaintiff’s bid and listed Plainiff a...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.'', 330 N.W.2d 693 (Minn | ''Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.'', 330 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 1983). | ||
'''Facts''': Defendant used subcontractor Plaintiff’s bid and listed Plainiff as the sub. D. had to use minority business, so they choose a different sub. Held for D. | '''Facts''': Defendant used subcontractor Plaintiff’s bid and listed Plainiff as the sub. D. had to use minority business, so they choose a different sub. Held for D. |
Revision as of 19:39, October 23, 2011
Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 1983).
Facts: Defendant used subcontractor Plaintiff’s bid and listed Plainiff as the sub. D. had to use minority business, so they choose a different sub. Held for D.
Issue: Was there a contract between the general contractor and subcontractor?
Holding: No.
Reason: The general contractor relies on the subcontractor's bid, but subcontractor does not rely on the general contractor’s bid. More leeway and flexibility are granted to a general contractor.
Rule: Use of a subcontractor's bid in submitting the prime bid does not (by itself) constitute acceptance of subcontractor’s offer.