Mead Associates, Inc. v. Antonsen, 82CA1297
| Decision Date | 05 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 82CA1297,82CA1297 |
| Citation | 677 P.2d 434 |
| Parties | MEAD ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Clarence ANTONSEN, d/b/a Antonsen Excavating, Defendant-Appellee. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Doyle & Biesterfeld, P.C., M. Dee Biesterfeld, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael V. Makaroff, Englewood, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff, Mead Associates, Inc., appeals the entry of a directed verdict dismissing its claims against the defendant for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
At trial plaintiff's evidence indicated the following events had occurred. The plaintiff sought subcontracting bids in connection with a general contractor's bid it was preparing for a construction job. The defendant, an excavation contractor, submitted his bid price to the plaintiff by telephone covering the excavation portion of the general contract. The defendant's bid price for the excavation work was the lowest submitted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff relied upon and used that price in calculating its bid on the general contract. Plaintiff was the low bidder and was awarded the general contract.
Plaintiff informed the defendant by telephone that his bid price for the excavation work was the lowest bid submitted, and that after the general contract was signed, the plaintiff would enter into a subcontract with the defendant for the excavation work. After the general contract was signed the plaintiff prepared a proposed subcontract and submitted it to the defendant for approval. The defendant reviewed the proposed written contract and concluded that certain of its terms were unacceptable. Plaintiff then prepared a second contract which differed in some particulars from the first contract. This second contract was also rejected. Both contracts were standard type contracts which conformed essentially to the bid price and general work requirements that had formed the basis of the bid.
Ultimately, defendant refused to perform the excavation work and the plaintiff was required to enter into a contract with a second subcontractor at a higher price.
Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant seeking, as damages, the difference between defendant's bid price and what it was required to pay as a result of having relied on the defendant's bid. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court concluded that a prima facie case of promissory estoppel had not been established and directed a verdict for defendant.
The doctrine of "promissory estoppel," as articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 has been adopted as part of the common law of Colorado. See Vigoda...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Four Nines Gold, Inc. v. 71 Const., Inc.
...Four Nines relies allows recovery on this theory when the general contractor's bid is accepted. E.g., Drennan, and Mead Associates, Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434 (Colo.App.1984). Four Nines' use of 71 Construction's bid in its bid to the city does not create a binding contract between the ......
-
Pavel Enterprises, Inc. v. A.S. Johnson Co., Inc.
...352 (8th Cir.1974) (applying Missouri law); Reynolds v. Texarkana Constr. Co., 237 Ark. 583, 374 S.W.2d 818 (1964); Mead Assocs. Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434 (Colo.1984); Illinois Valley Asphalt v. J.F. Edwards Constr. Co., 45 Ill.Dec. 876, 413 N.E.2d 209, 90 Ill.App.3d 768 (Ill.Ct.App.19......
-
Karakehian v. Boyer
...as to the promissory estoppel claim. See Ralston Oil & Gas Co. v. July Corp., 719 P.2d 334 (Colo.App.1985); Mead Associates, Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434 (Colo.App.1984). Here, the record indicates that defendant effectively consented to a jury trial on both the legal and equitable claims......
-
Politte v. McDonald's Corp.
...Colorado has not delineated how detailed a promise must be under 90, it, at least, requires a clear promise. Mead Associates, Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434, 436 (Colo.App.1984) (substantial evidence of specific promise); accord Kiely v. St. Germain, 670 P.2d 764, 766 (Colo.1983) (terms of ......
-
Chapter 37 - § 37.1 • INTRODUCTION
...530 P.2d 1302 (Colo. App. 1974).[5] Kiely, 670 P.2d 764; Nicol v. Nelson, 776 P.2d 1144 (Colo. App. 1989); Mead Assocs., Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434 (Colo. App. 1984).[6] Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Auth., 646 P.2d 900 (Colo. 1982).[7] See Mooney, 530 P.2d 1302; Hunter v. Hayes, 533 P......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.4 • PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
...LEXIS 268, *5 (Colo. App. Apr. 16, 1992) (jury was properly instructed on elements of promissory estoppel); Mead Assoc., Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434, 436 (Colo. App. 1984) (trial court erred in taking promissory estoppel claim away from the jury). The damages available for breach of cont......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.4 • PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
...LEXIS 268, *5 (Colo. App. Apr. 16, 1992) (jury was properly instructed on elements of promissory estoppel); Mead Assoc., Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434, 436 (Colo. App. 1984) (trial court erred in taking promissory estoppel claim away from the jury). The damages available for breach of cont......
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.9 • MISTAKES IN BIDS
...See L & M Enters., Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 700 F. Supp. 517 (D. Colo. 1988).[142] See Mead Assocs., Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434, 436 (Colo. App. 1984); see also Drennan v. Star Paving Co., 333 P.2d 757, 760 (Cal. 1958); Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Constr., LLC......