Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.Jump to navigationJump to search
|Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.|
|Citation||330 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 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.