Danley v. City of Alamogordo, 11665
| Docket Nº | No. 11665 |
| Citation | 1978 NMSC 31, 91 N.M. 520, 577 P.2d 418 |
| Case Date | April 12, 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Page 418
v.
CITY OF ALAMOGORDO, a Municipal Corporation of the State of
New Mexico, Respondent-Appellee.
Page 419
[91 NM 521] S. Thomas Overstreet, Alamogordo, for petitioner-appellant.
Steven K. Sanders, Alamogordo, for respondent-appellee.
Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., John J. Duran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for amicus curiae.
SOSA, Justice.
Suit was brought in the District Court of Otero County for declaratory judgment on a contract between Danley (Contractor) and the City of Alamogordo (City). Stipulation of facts were filed and both parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted the City's motion and the Contractor appealed. We reverse.
The Contractor was developing a subdivision and in doing so he was going to lay a 6 water line which was adequate for the subdivision. Since the City's future plans would eventually require installing a 10 water line, the Contractor, at the City's request, installed the 10 water line in lieu of the smaller size. Through the actions of the city council, the City agreed to pay the additional material cost. However, when the Contractor presented the City with the bill ($6,623.34) it refused payment. All these facts were stipulated to and, additionally, the City stipulated that the supplementary cost incurred by the Contractor was reasonable.
In granting summary judgment for the City, the court stated in its order that the judgment was necessary since the City had not complied with the Public Purchases Act. 1
The Public Purchases Act requires that all purchasing for local public bodies shall be performed by a central purchasing office designated by the governing authority of the user. § 6-5-21, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.1974). The Act further requires that all purchases by municipalities in the amount of $1,750 or more may be made only after solicitation of sealed bids. § 6-5-26(G), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp.1975). Accordingly, it has been held that where the mode of contracting is especially and plainly prescribed and limited, that mode is exclusive, and must be pursued, or the contract will not bind the municipality. Fancher et al. v. County Com., 28 N.M. 179, 210 P. 237 (1921); Snyder v. Board of Education, 10 N.M. 446, 62 P. 1090 (1900).
Notwithstanding these cases, the appellant's point that equity should intervene is well taken.
While the authorities are not uniform, there is good authority to support the rule that where a contract is entered into between a municipality and another in good faith and the City has received benefits, it should not be allowed to retain them without paying the reasonable value...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JBI Elec. Sys., Inc. v. KW AQE, LLC
...the inducing party refused to pay for the additional costs the contractor incurred. See Danley v. City of Alamogordo, 1978-NMSC-031, ¶ 9, 91 N.M. 520, 522, 577 P.2d 418, 420. See also J.R. Hale Contracting Co. v. Union Pac. R.R., 2008-NMCA-037, ¶ 70, 143 N.M. 574, 594, 179 P.3d 579, 599 (re......
-
Steven J. Abraham, & H Ltd. v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC
...relationship with the MCOs does not foreclose a claim for unjust enrichment,” and cited Danley v. City of Alamogordo, 1978–NMSC–031, 91 N.M. 520, 577 P.2d 418, and Platco Corp. v. Shaw, 1967–NMSC–123, 78 N.M. 36, 428 P.2d 10. In Danley v. City of Alamogordo, the City of Alamogordo, New Mexi......
-
Abraham v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC
...relationship with the MCOs does not foreclose a claim for unjust enrichment,” and cited Danley v. City of Alamogordo, 1978–NMSC–031, 91 N.M. 520, 577 P.2d 418, and Platco Corp. v. Shaw, 1967–NMSC–123, 78 N.M. 36, 428 P.2d 10. In Danley v. City of Alamogordo, the City of Alamogordo, New Mexi......
-
Starko, Inc. v. Presbyterian Health Plan, Inc.
...had a contractual relationship with the MCOs does not foreclose a claim for unjust enrichment. See Danley v. City of Alamogordo, 91 N.M. 520, 521, 577 P.2d 418, 419 (1978) (holding that a builder was free to pursue an unjust enrichment claim despite the fact that it was in privity with the ......