Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

Architectural Metal Systems, Inc. v. Consolidated Systems, Inc.,
58 F.3d 1227 No 94-3898 (7th Cir. July 5, 1995)
Offer and Acceptance – Under the Illinois U.C.C., a price quotation that specifies the items to be sold, the quantity and price of each specified item, and the delivery terms is not hopelessly vague, as long as the remaining terms regarding warranty, excuses, remedies and the like can be inferred from trade usage. Promissory Estoppel and the Statute of Frauds – Under the Illinois U.C.C., while the statute of frauds is applicable to a claim of promissory estoppel, if the alleged promise is a price quotation and such term is in writing, the statute of frauds is not a bar to the claim. Discrepancy in Bids Does Not Create Presumption of Mistake – a bid that is more than 50% lower than another bid does not, as a matter of law place the buyer on notice that the low bid contains a mistake.

AyrCom Contractors, Inc. v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.,
1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 981 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 1995)

Contract which contained two unit prices for laying cable in rock was ambiguous and court admitted extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of the ambiguous provisions. Evidence regarding the contractor’s profit or loss was not admissible because its relevance was outweighed by its substantial prejudice regarding the meaning of an ambiguous contract provision. A state’s requirement of a “certificate of authority” to conduct business in the state as a prerequisite to maintaining an action was not a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, but rather was related to a party’s capacity to sue and, therefore, was waived if not raised timely.

Associated Builders & Contractors, Golden Gate Chapter, Inc. v. Contra Costa Water District,
43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 600, 1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 734 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 1995)

California county water district performing construction financed under the provisions of state bond law was not subject to state statutes requiring competitive bidding and, therefore, its solicitation for bids which included a “project labor agreement” requiring the work to be performed with union labor was not improper.