Holman Erection Co. v. Orville e. Madsen & Sons, Inc.

Holman Erection Co. v. Orville e. Madsen & Sons, Inc.

1983 Minnesota Supreme Court

• Holman is subcontractor, suing Orville after it listed Holman as its subcontractor in calculating its bid, but failed to select Holman as actual subcontractor.
• Plaintiff claims that by listing him as subcontractor, defendant accepted offer.
• Court holds that listing does not constitute acceptance; policy and precedent doesn’t establish listing as binding.
• Holman argues that there is supposed to be reciprocity in contracts–court responds that subcontractors do the same work and submit the same bids to all the contractors.
• Court is supporting system of last-minute bids, to discourage bid shopping.
• On the other hand, under this system, bid shopping can still occur silently after general contractor is awarded the contract.

Author: international