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.
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.