1. William A. Drennan, Appellee, v. Star Paving Co, Inc., Appellant.
California Supreme Court Decided Dec. 31, 1958
2. Drennan was a licensed general contractor preparing a bid for a school district. Defendant
subcontractor was the lowest bidder for the paving work. Drennan used defendant’s bid in
computing his own bid for a school project. The day after receiving defendant’s bid
Drennan stopped by defendant ‘s office, whereupon Drennan was informed that
defendant’s bid was a mistake. Defendant refused to do the paving work at the price
originally given Drennan. Drennan sued defendant to recover damages caused by
defendant’s refusal to perform the work according to its bid.
3. Plaintiff sues for $3,817 [the difference between defendant’s bid and the cost of the
paving to plaintiff] plus court costs. The trial court found for the plaintiff and awarded
$3,817 in damages. Defendant appeals to the California Supreme Court.
4. Did the plaintiff’s reliance make the defendant’s offer irreversible?
5. A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance
of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promise and which does induce
such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of
the promise. Defendant’s offer constituted a promise to perform and had reason to
believe that if its bid was the lowest, plaintiff would use it. Defendant also did not make
it clear in its bid that it was revocable at any time before acceptance by plaintiff. The only
way to remove the injustice is to enforce the promise made by defendant. Judgment was
affirmed.
6. A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance
of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promise and which does induce
such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of