Youngstown Steel Erecting Co. v. MacDonald Engineering Co.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
154 F. Supp. 337 (1957)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
On July 6, 1955, Youngstown Steel Erecting Company, Inc. (Youngstown) (plaintiff) proposed installing concrete-reinforcement rods on a construction project of novel design, for which MacDonald Engineering Company (MacDonald) (defendant) was the general contractor. Youngstown’s proposal quoted a price for the work and was specific as to how the company could perform the job with common labor. On July 8, 1955, MacDonald sent Youngstown a letter proposing additional terms, although making no mention of Youngstown’s price quote, and requesting Youngstown’s response. On July 10, 1955, Youngstown sent MacDonald a letter accepting the new proposals in MacDonald’s July 8 letter. Youngstown later learned that MacDonald had awarded the subcontract to a third company, which completed the work with its own common laborers. Youngstown filed a diversity suit in federal district court, charging MacDonald with breach of contract. MacDonald’s president testified that (1) he never saw Youngstown’s July 10 letter, (2) MacDonald’s subcontracts typically were preprinted and contained more details than its July 8 letter proposed, and (3) he doubted Youngstown’s ability to work on the project’s novel design at Youngstown’s quoted price.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weick, 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.
