From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Southern California Acoustics Co., Inc. v. C.V. Holder, Inc.
Supreme Court of California
456 P.2d 975 (1969)
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
Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, C.J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.