Hotel China & Glassware Co. v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, C-347
| Decision Date | 09 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. C-347,C-347 |
| Citation | 130 So.2d 78 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HOTEL CHINA & GLASSWARE COMPANY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ALACHUA COUNTY, Florida, Appellee. |
Lazonby, Dell, Graham & Willcox, Gainesville, for appellant.
Clayton, Arnow, Duncan & Johnston, Gainesville, for appellee.
Plaintiff has appealed from an adverse judgment entered upon a verdict directed by the court in favor of defendant at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence. It is contended that the court erred in holding as a matter of law that plaintiff had failed to prove its entitlement to the relief prayed for in its complaint.
Defendant school board invited bids for the furnishing of certain specified equipment to be installed in designated public schools in Alachua County. Bids were invited pursuant to the requirements of the statute relating to purchases of this kind. 1 In response, plaintiff submitted its bid by which it agreed to furnish the equipment called for in the specifications for a total price of $4,373.08. Plaintiff's bid was accompanied by a certified check in the sum of $442.65 in accordance with the instructions to bidders which provided that all checks of the unsuccessful bidders would be returned within ten days after bid tabulation. The covering letter accompanying plaintiff's bid provided that in the event of the acceptance of the bid or any part thereof, the good faith check or such substitute check as would cover 5% of the accepted bid may be held by the school board until delivery in good condition of the equipment is complete in accordance with the requirements of the instructions to bidders and the specifications concerning quality and time of delivery, and that in the event of failure to make such delivery the check accompanying such bid shall be forfeited to the school board as liquidated damages for such failure; otherwise the check shall be returned to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff's bid was prepared by an inexperienced clerk in the process of which he committed two obvious clerical errors. He incorporated in the blank spaces provided in the bid form the unit price of the two items of equipment called for in Item 7 of the bid, and the unit price of three items of equipment called for in Item 8 of the bid. He failed to multiply the unit price by the number of items to be furnished in arriving at the total price set forth in the bid. This error resulted in a deficiency amounting to $1,512.09 in the intended price to be bid for furnishing the five articles of equipment listed in the questioned items of the proposal.
All bids submitted in response to the invitation published by defendant were opened by the school board at the designated time and place, and plaintiff's bid was the lowest received. As the results of the bidding were made known to those assembled at the meeting, one of plaintiff's employees immediately apprehended that an error had occurred in the preparation of plaintiff's bid. Three days later, having had the opportunity of analyzing its bid and discovering the clerical errors above mentioned, the president of plaintiff company immediately notified the school board of the error and requested permission to withdraw its bid from consideration. This was done prior to acceptance of plaintiff's bid by the school board, and before any formal announcement was made awarding the contract to plaintiff. The school board thereafter accepted plaintiff's bid in writing and forwarded to it a purchase order for the furnishing of the equipment at the price stated in the bid. Upon plaintiff's refusal to accept the purchase order or furnish the equipment in accordance with its bid, the school board forfeited plaintiff's good faith check and refused to return it as demanded.
The complaint filed in this cause is one at law seeking judgment in the amount of the good faith check deposited by plaintiff with its bid under the circumstances above related. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of defendant. By its judgment the court found that in checking over the bid before filing it with the school board, plaintiff's general manager was derelict and failed to exercise due care in that the errors complained of as grounds for withdrawal of the bid were perceptible at a glance. It was the holding of the trial court that bids of this nature are irrevocable and cannot be withdrawn after all bids have been opened except in unusual circumstances which were unnecessary to consider. The cause was accordingly dismissed and judgment entered in favor of defendant.
It is appellant's position that under the settled law of contract an offer may be withdrawn prior to its acceptance by the offeree even though it provides for a fixed time within which it may be accepted. 2 Since the evidence before the court clearly reveals that appellant attempted to withdraw its offer prior to its acceptance by appellee, appellant insists it had a right as a matter of law to do so and demands return of its good faith check.
We are thus presented with the question of whether one who files a bid for a public contract pursuant to the competitive bidding statutes of this state has an absolute right, with or without cause, to withdraw such bid after all bids have been opened and the results announced, but before the public authority has an opportunity to accept the lowest and best bid and make an award in conformity with its decision. Our research fails to disclose a decision by an appellate court of this state, and counsel have been unable to refer us to one, where this precise question has been decided. We have carefully reviewed decisions rendered by courts of our sister states, and on first impression the rules pronounced therein appear to be in irreconcilable conflict. Most of the cases involved such material factual and procedural differences from the case now under consideration as to render them of little help in the solution of this problem.
Some of the decisions holding that a bidder is entitled to withdraw his bid before acceptance thereof are suits in equity in which, under the facts there presented, it has been held that because of an honest unilateral mistake it would be inequitable to require a bidder to perform a contract in accordance with his bid. Under such circumstances a bidder may be relieved of the obligation of making good the offer evidenced by his bid, 3 and is entitled to a return of his bid check. 4 We find only one decision in which such relief was afforded in an action at law under circumstances comparable to those present in this case. 5
W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Capital Corp. v. Tel Service Co.
...Hodkin v. Perry, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 139; Forsythe v. Speilberger, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 427; Hotel China & Glassware Co. v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 78; Lyle v. Hunter, 1931, 102 Fla. 972, 136 So. 633; 31 C.J.S. Estoppel § 108, p. 548, et seq. The ......
-
MIAMI-DADE CTY. SCHOOL BOARD v. J. Ruiz School Bus Service, Inc.
...Id. (citing Marriott Corp. v. Metro. Dade County, 383 So.2d 662, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (quoting Hotel China & Glassware Co. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 130 So.2d 78, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961))). Here, the School Board did not challenge the finding that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously wh......
-
MJ McGough Company v. Jane Lamb Memorial Hospital
...of the contractor whether legal or equitable principles control in the particular action. See, e. g., Hotel China & Glassware Co. v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 130 So. 2d 78 (Fla.App.1961); Baltimore v. DeLuca-Davis Const. Co., supra. This, of course, is not a problem in Federal Courts wher......
-
Department of Transp. v. Ronlee, Inc.
...2 Appellee cites two cases, Hotel China & Glassware Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 130 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), and Clutter, 139 So.2d 153, as "Florida decisions [which] reflect that reformation of a contract will be permitted where the appropriate set of facts are presented." [Ap......
-
APA: legislative reform of disputed competitive procurement decisions.
...inquiry, or in violation of law, or as the result of improper influence. Id. at 551. Hotel China & Glassware Co. v. Alachua County, 130 So. 2d 78, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), described the purposes of the competitive bidding statute, including protection of the public, the creation of a sys......
-
Fighting for public dollars: procedures and pitfalls of protesting government bid awards.
...statutes and rules. Bid Protests The Third District Court of Appeal in Hotel China & Glassware Co. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 130 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), succinctly described the purpose of competitive bidding as Florida's competitive bid statutes ... create a system by which go......