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., 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.