Elsinore Union Elementary School District v. Kastorff
California Supreme Court
353 P.2d 713 (1960)
- Written by Christine Hilgeman, JD
Facts
On August 12, 1952, Kastorff (defendant) a building contractor, submitted a construction bid to Elsinore School District (Elsinore) (plaintiff) with a total project cost of $89,994. After the bids were opened on August 12, Elsinore asked Kastorff if his bid was correct, and he said that it was. The next day, August 13, Kastorff reviewed his worksheets and learned that he had failed to include the cost of plumbing on his final bid sheet, which lowered his bid by $6,500. On August 13, Kastorff’s architect informed Elsinore of the mistake, asking to withdraw Kastorff’s bid. On August 14, Kastorff wrote a letter to Elsinore explaining the mistake and asking to be released from the bid. Elsinore received Kastorff’s letter, but on August 15 decided not to grant his request to withdraw the bid and sent written acceptance of the bid on August 28. Kastorff did not sign the contract. Elsinore then accepted a bid from another contractor for $102,900 and sued Kastorff for the difference between that bid and Kastorff’s bid. The trial court found that Kastorff intended to bid $89,994 and that Elsinore was not on notice of a mistake impacting the amount of the bid. Judgment was entered for Elsinore, and Kastorff appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schauer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 778,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.