Layman's Sec. Co. v. Water Works and Sewer Bd. of City of Prichard
| Decision Date | 23 June 1989 |
| Citation | 547 So.2d 533 |
| Parties | LAYMAN'S SECURITY COMPANY v. WATER WORKS AND SEWER BOARD OF the CITY OF PRICHARD. 88-329. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Ronnie L. Williams, Mobile, for appellants.
Phillip M. Leslie, Mobile, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Prichard ("the Board"). The case arose when the Board terminated a three-year contract that it had with Layman's Security Company ("Layman's"), whereby Layman's was to provide security for the Board's plant located in Prichard. Because we find that the contract between the Board and Layman's was not entered into in compliance with the Alabama Competitive Bid Law, Ala.Code 1975, § 41-16-50 (Supp.1988), we affirm the summary judgment.
The facts in the present case are basically undisputed. On December 1, 1985, Layman's and the Board entered into a three-year contract in which Layman's agreed to provide security services for the Board's plant in Prichard, in exchange for a $1,500 per month fee and a five percent yearly increase. The contract was not entered into in compliance with the competitive bidding process outlined in the Competitive Bid Law. Layman's performed its contractual obligations until it was notified by a letter from the Board dated March 15, 1987, that the contract was terminated as of that date.
On July 31, 1987, Layman's filed suit, seeking damages for breach of contract. The court entered summary judgment for the Board. Layman's appeals.
The terms of the contract in question are unambiguous. The only issue presented is what effect, if any, is to be given a contract that falls within the scope of the Competitive Bid Law, but is not in compliance with the prescribed competitive bidding process. The Competitive Bid Law mandates that any contract for an amount in excess of $3,000 entered into by specified state or municipal governing bodies (including a water works or sewer board), shall be subject to free and open competitive bidding.
Clearly, the contract between Layman's and the Board is one that is covered by the Competitive Bid Law. The contract was for over $3,000, and it was made by a municipal water works and sewer board. It is also undisputed that the provisions of the Competitive Bid Law were not complied with when the contract was entered into. Therefore, unless the contract falls within one of the exceptions to the Competitive Bid Law, which are enumerated in Ala.Code 1975, § 41-16-51 (Supp.1988), or it can be shown that the Board should be estopped from terminating the contract, the contract between the Board and Layman's is void.
The relevant portion of § 41-16-51 states that competitive bidding is not required for:
"(3) Contracts for the securing of services of attorneys, physicians, architects, teachers, superintendents of construction, artists, appraisers, engineers, consultants, certified public accountants, public accountants or other individuals possessing a high degree of professional skill where the personality of the individual plays a decisive part...."
Layman's argues that the instant contract is within the language of this section; thus, it argues, summary judgment in favor of the Board was improper. It further asserts that the application of the statutory provisions calls for a factual determination that should be reserved for a jury. We disagree, and we hold that the providing of security does not constitute a service where the individual's personality is a decisive factor. Therefore, the contract does not fall within this exception to the Competitive Bid Law.
The only remaining grounds for enforcement of the contract is the equitable doctrine of estoppel. The relationship between the use of estoppel and the Alabama Competitive Bid Law was discussed by this Court in Maintenance, Inc. v. Houston County, 438 So.2d 741 (Ala.1983). In Maintenance, this Court held that a contract between the county and a solid waste corporation was void because of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re: Seth Ballew v. Town of Priceville
...438 So. 2d 741 (Ala. 1983); City of Guntersville v. Alred, 495 So. 2d 566 (Ala. 1986); and Layman's Sec. Co. v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Prichard, 547 So. 2d 533 (Ala. 1989). Ballew, ____ So. 2d at ____. In each of those cases, this Court addressed the question whether the doc......
-
Board of School Com'Rs v. Coastal Builders, 2040560.
...for a contract it voluntarily entered into.'" Ex parte Ballew, 771 So.2d at 1042 (quoting Layman's Sec. Co. v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Prichard, 547 So.2d 533, 536 (Ala.1989)). However, this court is bound to apply the Competitive Bid Law and the precedents of our supreme cou......
-
Ballew v. Town of Priceville
...from arguing that the contract was void. He urges this court to apply the reasoning set out in Layman's Sec. Co. v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Prichard, 547 So.2d 533 (Ala.1989); City of Guntersville v. Alred, 495 So.2d 566 (Ala. 1986); and Alford v. City of Gadsden, 349 So.2d 1......
-
Ex parte Ballew
...County, 438 So.2d 741 (Ala. 1983); City of Guntersville v. Alred, 495 So.2d 566 (Ala.1986); and Layman's Sec. Co. v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Prichard, 547 So.2d 533 (Ala.1989). Ballew, 771 So.2d at 1038. In each of those cases, this Court addressed the question whether the do......