Albanese v. Machetto, A--60
| Citation | 72 A.2d 521,7 N.J.Super. 188 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. A--60,A--60 |
| Parties | ALBANESE v. MACHETTO et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
Nicholas S. Schloeder, Union City, argued the cause for appellants (W. Leo Batten, Union City, attorney).
Milton B. Conford, Newark, argued the cause for respondent (Peter P. Artaserse, Jersey City, attorney).
Before Judges COLIE, JAYNE and EASTWOOD.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
COLIE, J.A.D.
Gabriel Machetto and four named individuals comprising the Board of Commissioners of the Township of North Bergen, together with Gerald Capasso and four other individuals doing business under the name of Hudson Sanitation Co. appeal from a judgment in favor of Dominick T. Albanese which set aside the award to the Hudson Sanitation Co. of a contract for the removal of garbage in the Township of North Bergen. Hudson Sanitation Co. was the low bidder.
The plaintiff, Dominick T. Albanese, a taxpayer and resident of the township, filed a complaint seeking to set aside the award of the contract upon the ground of failure to comply with the specifications. The defendants answered the complaint and thereafter plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Upon the motion, the court below had before it, affidavits of both plaintiff and the defendants. The ground upon which summary judgment was entered was the failure of Hudson Sanitation Co. to meet the requirement of the written proposal that 'each proposal must be accompained by * * * a certificate from a surety company * * * that said company will provide the bidder with a bond required by the contract, should the bidder be awarded the contract.' Hudson Sanitation Co. did not furnish the prescribed certificate but in lieu thereof its bond for $5,000 with Royal Indemnity Company as surety thereon, conditioned that it as principal would, if its bid was accepted, 'enter into a contract for the completion of said work and give the required bond with good and sufficient surety for the faithful performance thereof'. Thereafter a completion bond in the sum of $74,900 was tendered the municipality with the same company as surety thereon.
In addition to the ground upon which the court below based its action, we point out that the bidder did not comply with another requirement of the specifications in that it did not 'submit satisfactory proof of evidence of ownership or leases for five trucks suitable for the removal of the garbage specified herein.' We discern no difference in principle between the failure to comply with the requirement of evidence of ownership and leases in the instant case and the failure to furnish proof of ownership of a dumping ground or a lease therefor which was held to be a non-compliance with the specifications in Tufano v. Borough of Cliffside Park, 110 N.J.L. 370, 165 A. 628 (Sup.Ct.1933).
The Board of Commissioners of the municipality was without authority to waive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meadowbrook Carting Co., Inc. v. Borough of Island Heights
...that the low bidder will have the capacity to perform the contract and to supply the necessary bonds. See Albanese v. Machetto, 7 N.J.Super. 188, 191, 72 A.2d 521 (App.Div.1950) (holding that low bidder's failure to comply with specifications requiring consent of surety to be submitted with......
-
L. Pucillo & Sons, Inc. v. Township of Belleville
...132 N.J.Super. 473, 334 A.2d 334 (App.Div.1974) and Albanese v. Machetto, 5 N.J.Super. 605, 68 A.2d 659 (Law Div.1949), aff'd, 7 N.J.Super. 188, 72 A.2d 521 (1950) (taxpayers have standing); see also Band's Refuse Removal v. Fair Lawn, 62 N.J.Super. 522, 539, 163 A.2d 465 (App.Div.), certif......
-
Ace-Manzo, Inc. v. Township of Neptune
...25 N.J. 317, 136 A.2d 265 (1957), failing to deliver a certificate demonstrating a present ability to perform, Albanese v. Machetto, 7 N.J.Super. 188, 72 A.2d 521 (App.Div.1950) failing to submit a detailed description of materials, Case v. Trenton, 76 N.J.L. 696, 74 A. 672 (E. & A. 1909), ......
-
Albert F. Ruehl Co. v. Board of Trustees of Schools for Indus. Ed.
...at p. 324,136 A.2d 265; William A. Carey & Co. v. Fair Lawn, supra, 37 N.J.Super., at p. 165, 117 A.2d 140; Albanese v. Machetto, 7 N.J.Super. 188, 191, 72 A.2d 521 (App.Div.1950). As was said in Case v. Trenton, 76 N.J.L. 696, 74 A. 672 (E. & A. '* * * We must consider the public policy wh......