Graham v. Clyde
| Decision Date | 04 November 1952 |
| Citation | 61 So.2d 656 |
| Parties | GRAHAM et al. v. CLYDE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Edward F. Bordman and Lucille Von Arx, Miami, for appellants.
L. Earl Curry, Miami, for appellee.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Ralph E. Odum, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William A. Bostwick, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., as amicus curiae.
Appellee filed his complaint, praying for rescission, cancellation, injunction, and other relief against a bid for construction of a school building. At final hearing the chancellor overruled appellants' motion to strike, motion to dismiss, motion for decree on bill and answer, found the equities to be with appellee, rescinded his bid and enjoined appellants from attempting to enforce it. This appeal is from the final decree.
The point for determination is whether or not the complaint was sufficient in equity to resist the motion to dismiss.
The material facts are not in dispute and no fraud is charged. Appellee, a building contractor, was low bidder on a proposal to construct a public school building and was awarded the contract. The following day he notified appellants that he had made a mistake of $5000.00 in computing the items in his bid and asked to be relieved of performance. His bid was $52,050.00. He offered to perform the contract for $57,050.00, which was less than the next low bidder and less than appellants' estimate of the cost. It was the proffer he intended to make. The real point in the case is whether or not on such a factual basis, appellee should have been permitted to withdraw his bid.
By the rule generally approved equity will not relieve against the mistake of one guilty of culpable negligence, neither will it relieve against a mistake that could have been avoided by caution. If the one seeking relief could have avoided his mistake by reasonable care or diligence, a court of equity will not relieve him. In other words if one's mistake is due to his own negligence and lack of foresight and there is absence of fraud or imposition, equity will not relieve him.
With this criterion before us let us examine the bid in question. It was proffered by appellee after he secured the proposed instruction to bidders, a set of the plans and specifications, and the rules and regulations governing bidders. He deposited the sum required as a prerequisite to securing a copy of the plans and specifications, he attended the meeting of appellants when his bid and eight others were opened, he was awarded the contract and left the meeting. It is admitted that every formality leading up to the letting of the contract was complied with by both parties. Appellee then found that in computing the figures on which his bid was made he failed to include an item of $5,000.00. The following day he notified appellants of his error and requested that he be permitted to withdraw his bid. It is admitted that appellants were in no sense responsible for the error, but it was due solely to appellee's mistake in addition.
Appellee contends that the judgment of the court below cancelling his bid should be affirmed on authority of Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. Rochester, 178 U.S. 373, 20 S.Ct. 957, 44 L.Ed. 1108; Kutsche v. Ford, 222 mich. 442, 192 N.W. 714; and School District of Scottsbluff v. Olson Construction Co., 153 Neb. 451, 45 N.W.2d 164. These cases deal with unilateral mistakes in contracts, some phases of which are similar to those in the case at bar, but others are quite different. The Moffett case, for example, proceeded on the theory that the contract was in no sense the one that was intended to be made, the reason being, that the error was so at variance from the context of the transaction, that the minds of the parties never met. The purpose of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whispering Pines of Royal Palm Beach Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC
...to his own negligence and lack of foresight and there is absence of fraud or imposition, equity will not relieve him." Graham v. Clyde, 61 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 1952). In Group USA, Inc. v. Dolphin Mall Associates, LLC, 2011 WL 181451, *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2011), Plaintiff's "mistake" was ......
-
Department of Transp. v. Ronlee, Inc.
...reformation by belated request of a bid contract for a public project in order to make it profitable to the contractor. 2 Graham v. Clyde, 61 So.2d 656 (Fla.1952), is the only case presented by the parties where reformation was even sought as relief for a mistaken bid. There a building cont......
-
Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Hardaway Co., 97-2664
...lack of due care under the unilateral mistake doctrine. Id. at 156. The appellate court further distinguished the case from Graham v. Clyde, 61 So.2d 656 (Fla.1952), a case in which a bidder accidentally submitted a bid that was $5,000 lower than intended, and the court refused to apply the......
-
Kowalski v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
...Thus, this case does not address the issue of whether a unilateral mistake bars a claim for unjust enrichment. Similarly, Graham v. Clyde, 61 So.2d 656 (Fla.1952), cited in Nordberg, addressed whether a plaintiff was entitled to rescind a construction bid that included a $5000.00 computatio......