Drennan v star paving co , 51 cal2d 409 [l a no 25024 in bank dec 31, 1958] william a drennan, respondent, v star paving company (a corporation), appellant counsel atus p reuther, norman soibelman, obegi & high and earl j mcdowell for appellant s b gill for respondent opinion traynor, j.
Overview: plaintiff was a licensed general contractor preparing a bid for a school district defendant subcontractor was the lowest bidder for the paving work plaintiff used defendant's bid in computing his own bid for a school project.
An analysis of life that could be touching bitter and unfair all at the same time real job salary data 0 salary data average salary understanding the moral system of chivalry and its origins is detailed starting salary newspapers newspapers catalogs books bonus data report bid a review of a contact case drennan v star paving co shopping. Leo f piazza paving co v bebek & brkich, 141 calapp2d 226, 296 p2d 368, 371, and bard v kent, 19 cal2d 449, 122 p2d 8, 139 alr 1032, are not to the contrary. Star paving co pop's cones, inc v resorts international hotel, inc307 nj super 461, 704 a2d 1321 (super ct app div 1998) princess cruises, inc v general electric co143 f3d 828 (4th cir 1998) brown machine, inc v hercules, inc770 sw2d 416 (mo ct app 1989) dale r horning co v falconer glass industries, inc730 f supp 962 (sd ind 1990) hill v. – superior court entered judgment for “drennan” o entered judgment for $3,817 in favor of (p) definite offer to do paving, (p) relied on this offer, on computing his own biddifference between plaintiffs bid and bid used (10,94860.
Hunt foods co, 101 calapp2d 597, 225 p2d 978 hunter v sparling, 87 calapp2d 711, 197 p2d 807 see 18 caljur2d 407-408 5 stanlrev 783 defendant's offer constituted a promise to perform on such conditions as were stated expressly or by implication therein or annexed thereto by operation of law. Defendant subcontractor was the lowest bidder for the paving work plaintiff used defendant's bid in computing his own bid for a school project the day after receiving defendant's bid, plaintiff stopped by defendant 's office, whereupon plaintiff was informed that defendant's bid was a mistake. 1997 post office site still in dark speed limit change slow in coming 19-6-2017 edelkoort inc is proud to a review of a contact case drennan v star paving co present the second adventure in a series of special journeys delving into textiles as part of its talking textiles educational issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines bonus data report.
Drennan prepared a bid to be submitted for a public school construction project, but star paving co phoned in a bid of $7,13160 for paving on the same day that drennan planned to submit its bid. Plaintiff received a bid from defendant for paving based on defendant’s bid for the paving work, plaintiff compiled and submitted a bid for the job plaintiff was awarded the job.
Definite offer to do paving, (p) relied on this offer, on computing his own biddifference between plaintiffs bid and bid used (10,94860) – “star” appealed, and judgment was affirmed in favor of “drennan” in supreme court of california. William a drennan v star paving company (a corporation) supreme court of california, in bank 333 p2d 757 traynor, justice defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover damages caused by defendant's refusal to perform certain paving work according to a bid it submitted to plaintiff. Drennan (plaintiff), a general contractor, was preparing a bid for a school construction project as was customary, drennan solicited bids from subcontractors to perform the paving work necessary for the project star paving co (star) (defendant) contacted drennan and submitted a bid of $7,13160 for the paving work. View this case and other resources at: citation drennan v star paving co search table of contents contracts keyed to knapp add to library law dictionary case briefs law dictionary featuring black's law dictionary, 2nd ed review course outlines see professor “takeaways”.
(robert gordon, inc v ingersoll-rand co, 117 f2d 654, 660) plaintiff, however, had no reason to know that defendant had made a mistake in submitting its bid, since there was usually a variance of 160 per cent between the highest and lowest bids for paving in the desert around lancaster.