Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Revision as of 19:53, February 22, 2022 by Rezsue (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.
Citation 330 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 1983)
Date decided 1983


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.


Was there a contract between the general contractor and subcontractor?




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.


Use of a subcontractor's bid in submitting the prime bid does not (by itself) constitute acceptance of subcontractor’s offer.