Meade Const. Co., Inc. v. Mansfield Commercial Elec., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1979 |
| Citation | 579 S.W.2d 105 |
| Parties | MEADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Movant, v. MANSFIELD COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Carl D. Edwards, Jr., William H. Jones, Jr., Vanantwerp, Hughes, Monge & Jones, Ashland, for movant.
Max Picklesimer, Johnson, Dunnigan & Martin, Ashland, for respondent.
Meade Construction Company, Inc., seeks review of a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a judgment of the Boyd Circuit Court which dismissed Meade's complaint against Mansfield Commercial Electric, Inc. We reverse and remand.
Meade, a general contractor, successfully bid for the construction of the Fairfield Stadium press box at Marshall University in West Virginia. In preparing its bid on the stadium job, Meade solicited bids from various contractors on different aspects of the work. Mansfield submitted the apparent low electrical subcontractor's bid in which Mansfield agreed to furnish materials and perform all electrical work on the project for $11,500.00. Mansfield's initial bid was submitted to Meade by telephone. Subsequent to this bid and prior to Meade's submitting the ultimate contract bid, Meade called Mansfield to ask why its bid was substantially lower than the other bids received by Meade. Mansfield at that time reaffirmed its bid. The day after Meade submitted its contract bid for the job, Mansfield again verified its bid of $11,500.00 in a letter to Meade.
Meade was subsequently awarded the press box contract. Upon Meade's request to Mansfield that it execute a written contract and start work, Mansfield notified Meade that it was not going to do the job because Mansfield had not been paid in full for work previously done for Meade. The record is silent as to why Meade had not paid Mansfield. Mansfield was subsequently paid for work performed under the previous contract, but again refused to perform the electrical work. Without soliciting new bids, Meades then contracted with the second lowest subcontract bidder from the initial solicitation of bids to perform the work for $19,812.00.
Meade filed an action against Mansfield seeking to recover the $8,312.00 difference between the respondent's bid and the amount paid to the subcontractor which actually performed the work. After presentation of evidence by both parties, the trial court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
It is without question that a written contract was never signed by Mansfield. Meade contends that Mansfield is liable despite the absence of a written agreement, under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Siemens Medical Solutions Usa, Inc.
...promise is necessary to avoid an injustice. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1979); Meade Const. Co., Inc. v. Mansfield Commercial Elec., Inc., 579 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Ky.1979); Lichtefeld-Massaro, Inc. v. R.J. Manteuffel Co., Inc., 806 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Ky.Ct.App.1991); Rivermont I......
-
Fs Investments, Inc. v. Asset Guar. Ins. Co.
...of the promise. McCarthy v. Louisville Cartage Co., 796 S.W.2d 10, 11 (Ky.Ct.App., 1990) (citing Meade Const. Co. v. Mansfield Commercial Elec., 579 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Ky.1979)). Accordingly, this Court must determine whether the plaintiff set forth a prima facie case of promissory To state a......
-
Bisig v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
...breach may be limited as justice requires. Sawyer v. Mills , 295 S.W.3d 79, 89 (Ky. 2009) (quoting Meade Const. Co. v. Mansfield Commercial Elec., Inc. , 579 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Ky. 1979) ); accord Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (Am. Law Inst. 1981).As the TWB Distribution court explai......
-
Sawyer v. Mills
...only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires." Meade Constr. Co. v. Mansfield Commercial Elec, Inc., 579 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Ky. 1979) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (Tentative Draft No. 2, First, it is not clear that und......