Greer v. Hitchcock

California Court of Appeal Apr 1, 1969 No. Civ. 24813; Civ. 24814Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the initial contract awarded at the original bid price was valid and enforceable, while the subsequent agreement to increase the contract price violated statutory competitive bidding requirements and was therefore void.

Issues

Whether a public contract awarded at the original bid price is enforceable after the board attempted to rescind and reform the contract to a higher price.
Whether a contractor may recover amounts in excess of the original bid price based on clerical errors when the contract was not let through competitive bidding.

Disposition. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Granting of such an increase directly violated the statutory requirement that contracts be let only to the lowest bidder answering a published call for bids.”

“Because the board could make no contract in excess of the bid, its resolution of November 30 purporting to fix a price of more than $71,000 was void, and created no enforceable contract against the district.”

“That contract, having been made in compliance with the public bidding requirement, is valid.”

DRAPER, P. J.

Contra Costa County Storm Drainage District Zone 13 called for bids for construction of a drainage system. When the bids were opened November 16, 1965, Northbay Pipeline Company was the low bidder, at $64,199.10. The next day, that bidder notified the board of supervisors that clerical errors in preparing its bid made the figure too low by $22,392.58. Addition of this amount to the actual bid would leave Northbay’s figure some $10,000 below the next highest bid. On November 23, the board, by resolution, rejected Northbay’s request for revision of its bid, and directed award of the contract to Northbay at the bid figure. This resolution was rescinded November 30, and an “Agreement for Reformation of Bid” and a new contract for the same work at a price of $71,955.88 was executed by the board and Northbay. Gerald P. Greer filed a taxpayer’s suit against

[336]

Hitchcock • and Funk, county treasurer and auditor, to restrain payment by them to Northbay. Northbay then commenced an action against the district, the board of supervisors, the county treasurer and auditor to recover some $22,000 claimed to have been omitted from its bid through clerical errors. The full bid price had been paid to it. The cases were consolidated for trial. Judgment denied Northbay the full recovery it sought, but allowed it to recover the $7,000 plus excess over the original bid which was provided for by the revised contract. Northbay appeals, urging that some $22,000 should have been awarded to it. Greer’s appeal urges that the $7,000 excess over the bid was erroneously granted.

The statute under which the district was organized requires that all contracts for any improvement costing the amount here involved be let only to the lowest responsible bidder after a published call for bids (Deering’s Uncodified Water Acts, Act 1656, § 22; West’s Water Code Appendix, § 69-29). This required mode of contracting limits the power to contract. No contract made otherwise is enforceable against the public corporation. Nor can work done without a valid contract afford a basis for recovery in quasi-contract, by way of estoppel, or through attempted ratification of the invalid contract, since allowance of any such recovery would evade the salutary requirement of competitive bidding for public contracts

(Zottman

Greer v. Hitchcock

AI Brief

DRAPER, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief