Logourl black

Southern California Acoustics Co., Inc. v. C.V. Holder, Inc.

Supreme Court of California
456 P.2d 975 (1969)


Facts

Southern California Acoustics Co., Inc. (Acoustics) (plaintiff) is a subcontractor. C.V. Holder, Inc. (Holder) (defendant) is a general contractor. Acoustics submitted a bid to supply products to Holder as part of a potential prime contract between Holder and the Los Angeles Unified School District (school district) (defendant). Holder did not respond to Acoustics’ bid, but submitted its own bid for the prime contract with the school district. Holder was awarded the prime contract by the school district. A local newspaper published a story about the award of the prime contract to Holder and listed the names of each of Holder’s subcontractors. The newspaper article listed Acoustics as a subcontractor. Acoustics did not receive notification of acceptance from Holder, but instead assumed its bid had been accepted by Holder after reading the newspaper article. As a result, Acoustics refrained from bidding on other prime contracts. Holder later requested and received permission from the school district to substitute another subcontractor for Acoustics, allegedly on the ground that Acoustics was inadvertently named as a subcontractor in the newspaper article. Acoustics sought a writ of mandamus in California state court seeking to compel the school district to rescind its consent to the change in subcontractors. The trial court sustained the school district’s demurrer and dismissed Acoustics’ complaint. Acoustics did not appeal, but instead brought suit in California state court against Holder and the school district seeking damages for breach of contract. In the alternative, Acoustics sought damages based on a theory of promissory estoppel.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Here's why 91,000 law students rely 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.
  • 12,498 briefs - keyed to 168 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.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now