Drennan v Star paving Co
Author: Meg

Consideration-
Offer- sub contractors bid over the phone
Acceptance-

F
General contractor, the plaintiff, sought to recover damages against defendant, the paving contractor for refusing to perform according to the bid submitted.  Judgment was for the plaintiff and defendant appeals.  Defendant's estimator phoned plaintiff w/ a bid for a job (customary in that area), plaintiff's secretary received the bid and repeated it over the phone back to the estimator per his request. Plaintiff's bid was the lowest and was awarded the contract for a job;  the next day, plaintiff  went to defendant's office & was told that defendant had made a mistake and could not do the job @ the price quoted. Defendant had quoted apx $7 thou and later said they could not do it for less than $15.  Plaintiff sought another subcontractor, the lowest bid he could find was apx $11 thou. Trial court found that plaintiff relied on the bid, and entered judgment amounting to the difference btw defendant's bid & cost of the paving plus costs.

I
Whether plaintiff's reliance on defendant's offer created an irrevocable offer?

R
"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"

A
Defendant had reason to believe that plaintiff would perform per his offer, and defendant relied on that offer. Defendant offer did not expressly state or imply that it was revocable at any time prior to acceptance. Analogous to this is the unilateral contract which now, once the performance has begun, is irrevocable prior to completion.  In the absence of consideration, reasonable reliance is sufficient. Plaintiff reasonable relied on the subcontractors bid, and defendant had reason to believe that plaintiff would choose the low bid and rely on it. General contractors are not free to delay acceptance after they are awarded the contract in the hopes that they find a better price, nor can they re-open bargaining w/ subcontractors while simultaneously claiming a continual right to accept the original offer. If plaintiff knew defendant made a mistake, he could not rely on it, nor enforce it. The plaintiff had no reason to believe defendant had made a mistake.

C
J affirmed.