Pavel Enterprises, Inc. v. A. S. Johnson Company, Inc.

342 Md. 143, 674 A.2d 521 (1996)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Pavel Enterprises, Inc. v. A. S. Johnson Company, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Maryland
342 Md. 143, 674 A.2d 521 (1996)

  • Written by Joseph Bowman, JD
Play video

Facts

The National Institute of Health (NIH) solicited bids from general contractors for work on a planned construction project. In response, Pavel Enterprises Incorporated (Pavel) (plaintiff), a general contractor, began preparing a bid for the project by soliciting its own bids from a number of subcontractors. A.S. Johnson Company (Johnson) (defendant) submitted the lowest subcontractor bid, which Pavel used in calculating a bid for submission to NIH. Pavel submitted only the second lowest bid and was not immediately awarded the contract. Ultimately, however, NIH awarded the contract to Pavel, and Pavel informed Johnson that Johnson had been selected as the subcontractor for the project. Johnson, however, replied that its bid had contained an error, and that as a result the bid was too low. Accordingly, Johnson sought to withdraw its bid. Pavel refused to consent to Johnson’s withdrawal and ultimately was forced to accept the bid of another subcontractor. The substitute contractor’s price was $32,000 higher than Johnson’s bid, and Pavel brought suit to recover this difference. The trial court, analyzing the facts under both traditional contract principles and a theory of detrimental reliance, found that no contract had been formed, nor enforceable promise made. Pavel appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Karwacki, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership