Stewart Capital Corp. v. Andrus
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
468 F. Supp. 1261 (1979)

- Written by Douglas Halasz, JD
Facts
Stewart Capital Corporation (SCC) (plaintiff), a Delaware corporation, submitted a bid to the Department of the Interior (the department) for an offshore oil-and-gas lease. Cecil Andrus (defendant), as the secretary of interior, reviewed the bids to decide on the department’s behalf. The notice for the bids required all bids to be submitted in accordance with applicable regulations. Additionally, the notice set forth the form of the bid, including specific signature requirements that did not include an attestation to the bid. Further, the department required each bidder to submit a check for a portion of the bid, as well as a copy of the corporate documents authorizing the person signing the bid to do so on the corporation’s behalf with an appropriate attestation by the corporate secretary or assistant secretary. Although SCC’s president signed the bid, the signature was not attested to by SCC’s corporate secretary or assistant secretary. However, SCC’s assistant secretary attested to the check submitted with the bid and the corporate documents authorizing SCC’s president and assistant secretary to respectively execute and attest to the necessary documents to make the bid. SCC submitted the highest bid. Notwithstanding, Andrus accepted a lower bid on the ground that the omission of a formal attestation accompanying the president’s signature on SCC’s bid purportedly invalidated the bid. Accordingly, SCC sued Andrus and sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pollack, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.