Opinion
No. 36439
Decided November 30, 1960.
Mandamus — Not available where adequate remedy by injunction — Board of education — Awarding construction contract — Lowest responsible bidder.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
This mandamus proceeding was instituted in the Court of Appeals. The relator, in his petition, challenges the right of the respondent board of education to award a certain construction contract to the other respondent, the Willard Construction Company, rather than to the relator. Relator alleges that the respondent construction company was awarded the contract although it was not the lowest responsible bidder, and that the action of the respondent board in so awarding the contract "was illegal, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law and the facts."
Relator alleges further that, because of the refusal of the respondent board to award him the contract, "he has suffered loss of profits in the amount of $4,500 and other damages for which he has no other adequate remedy."
The prayer of the petition is that a writ issue commanding the respondent board to award relator the contract "and for all further relief to which the relator may be entitled, including money damages for loss of profit in the amount of $4,500 in the event that relator is found to be entitled to said writ, but that the court, because of reasons of practicality, in its discretion, refuses said writ."
Answers were filed by both respondents.
It was agreed by stipulation that the work called for by the contract awarded to the respondent construction company has been fully completed.
The Court of Appeals denied the relief prayed for and dismissed the petition.
Mr. Allan Hull, for appellant.
Mr. King A. Wilmot, director of law, for appellee.
Messrs. Persky Loeb, for Willard Construction Company.
It is conceded by the parties that the respondent board had the right to reject all bids. The "notice to bidders" provides, inter alia, that "the board of education reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informalities in the bidding."
If he is right in his contentions, relator would have been entitled to injunctive relief.
Since that would be an adequate remedy, the Court of Appeals was correct in denying relator relief by way of mandamus. State, ex rel. Grant, Jr., Exr., v. Kiefaber et al., Montgomery County Planning Comm., ante, 326.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, TAFT, MATTHIAS, BELL, HERBERT and PECK, JJ., concur.