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