Holman Erection v. Orville E. Madsen and Sons

Holman Erection v. Orville E. Madsen and Sons - There is...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page: 231 Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Rule: Ct. of App. Minn. (1983) J. Yetka Madsen and Sons (D) and other gen contractors were bidding on a job. Madsen listed subcontractor Holman Erection Co., but when awarded the job, employed another sub for the same work due to a federally mandated minority provision. D. sued claiming acceptance of bid by listing. Trial Ct. gave summ judgement to D. and P. appeals. Ct. of appeals explains unequal treatment of gen and subs.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: There is detrimental reliance by a general contractor when submitting bids. There is no detrimental reliance by the sub., they can bid to many generals bidding for the same job without additional expense. General Contractors also work with a strict time table when submitting bids. By not binding Generals to their Sub.s, there is allowance to work out specifics after contract is awarded. Whether by listing a subcontractors bid, a general contractor has accepted that bid. No. Reasons above....
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

Holman Erection v. Orville E. Madsen and Sons - There is...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online