Andrews v. City of Detroit

5 Citing cases

  1. Orion Port. v. Coun. of Clark, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 39, 53969 (2010)

    245 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2010)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that "it is well-established that the terms of the advertisement and the terms of the bid or contract do not need to be identical."

    Other jurisdictions have taken the Faust rule a step further and determined that the resulting contract must also be in substantial accordance with the terms of the advertisement for bids. See Pascoe v. Barlum, 225 N.W. 506, 507 (Mich. 1929) (holding "that the bid must conform to the specifications, and the contract to both," but to "destroy the competitive character of the bid . . ., the variation must be substantial") (citing Andrews v. City of Detroit, 206 N.W. 514 (Mich. 1925)); National Engineering Cont. Co. v. City of Cleveland, 146 N.E.2d 340, 345 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1957) (citingPascoe, 225 N.W. 506, and Andrews, 206 N.W. 514); Wantland v. Anderson, 203 S.W.2d 787, 790 (Tex. Civ. App. 1947) (holding that "a variation between the contract as advertised and the one actually entered into . . . must be substantial [in order to] render such contract void and illegal") (citingPascoe, 225 N.W. 506); Platt Elec. Sup., Inc. v. City of Seattle, Div. of Pur., 555 P.2d 421, 430 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976) ("A public contract awarded pursuant to competitive bidding procedures must be substantially in accordance with the terms of the invitation to bid."); 64 Am. Jur. 2d. Public Works and Contracts § 65 (2001 Supp. 2010).

  2. State v. Mitchell

    74 P.2d 417 (Mont. 1937)   Cited 4 times

    ( Chicago Sanitary Dist. v. McMahon M. Co., 110 Ill. App. 510.) "There can be no question," said the court in Andrews v. Detroit, 233 Mich. 79, 206 N.W. 514, 515, "that the bid must conform to the specifications, and the contract to both." "A bid to furnish public supplies should respond to the advertisement for bids, and embrace all the articles therein named.

  3. Robinson v. City of Saginaw

    255 N.W. 396 (Mich. 1934)   Cited 2 times
    In Robinson v. City of Saginaw, 267 Mich. 557, 255 N.W. 396, it was held that a sufficient standard was established although the length of the period of guaranty was left to the individual bidder to determine.

    The bid therefore did conform substantially and in material respects with the notice or advertisement for bids, and with the specifications, although it contained only a one-year guarantee. Andrews v. City of Detroit, 233 Mich. 79; Pascoe v. Barlum, 247 Mich. 343 (65 A.L.R. 833). Appellants contend that if the specifications did permit bidders to submit any guaranty they desired, there was then a lack of a definite, concise basis for competition among bidders, in violation of the provision of the charter requiring competitive bidding.

  4. Fuller Co. v. Elderkin

    154 A. 548 (Md. 1931)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that, absent fraud, collusion, or arbitrary conduct, the decisions of the "board of awards," then a Baltimore City procurement agency, "are not reviewable by the courts."

    The failure of the Fuller Company to bid on them could have had no effect on other bidders. Warnock Zahrndt v. Wray, 132 Misc Rep. 882, 230 N.Y.S. 681, is directly in point. See also, Pascoe v. Barlum, 247 Mich. 343, 225 N.W. 506; Andrews v. City of Detroit, 233 Mich. 79, 206 N.W. 514; Nathan v. O'Brien, 117 App. Div. 664, 102 N.Y.S. 947. By not bidding on these items, the company took the risk of being excluded, if either of these alternates should be adopted, or if the city should elect to disregard the company's bid because of its failure to comply with the city's request to bid on all items.

  5. Pascoe v. Barlum

    247 Mich. 343 (Mich. 1929)   Cited 14 times
    Holding "that the bid must conform to the specifications, and the contract to both," but to "destroy the competitive character of the bid . . ., the variation must be substantial"

    "There can be no question that the bid must conform to the specifications, and the contract to both." Andrews v. City of Detroit, 233 Mich. 79. But not every variation from the specifications will destroy the competitive character of the bid.