Holman Erection Co. v. Orville E. Madsen & Sons, Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
330 N.W.2d 693 (1983)
- Written by Matt Fyock, JD
Facts
A city solicited bids for the construction of a water treatment facility. Orville E. Madsen & Sons (Madsen) (defendant) decided to bid on the general contract, so he solicited bids for the necessary steel erection. Holman Erection Co. (Holman) (plaintiff) prepared a bid and, in conformance with an industry practice designed to prevent bid-shopping, submitted its bid to Madsen by telephone shortly before the general bid was due. Madsen used Holman’s bid in preparing its own bid for the general contract and, as the city required general contractors to list all potential subcontractors, listed Holman as its subcontractor on its bid. Madsen was awarded the general contract and awarded the steel subcontract to Van Knight, partially on the basis that Van Knight was a minority business, and the general contract required that an effort be made to have a portion of the work done by minority businesses. Van Knight also agreed to provide substantial labor and materials that Holman had not. When Holman learned the subcontract had gone to Van Knight, Holman brought suit against Madsen, alleging that Madsen had accepted its bid and that in awarding the subcontract to another company had breached a binding contract. Holman appealed from a grant of summary judgment to Madsen.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Yetka, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 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.
