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.
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
''Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.'', 330 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 1983).
{{Infobox Case Brief
 
|citation=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.
|date=1983
 
|subject=Contracts
'''Issue''': Was there a contract between the general contractor and subcontractor?
|case_treatment=No
 
|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.
'''Holding''': No.
|issues=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.
|reasons=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.
'''Rule''': Use of a subcontractor's bid in submitting the prime bid does not (by itself) constitute acceptance of subcontractor’s offer.
}}
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]]

Revision as of 19:53, February 22, 2022

Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.
Court
Citation 330 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 1983)
Date decided 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.

Issues

Was there a contract between the general contractor and subcontractor?

Holding

No.

Reasons

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.