Oakland-Alameda County Builders' Exchange v. F. P. Lathrop Constr. Co., OAKLAND-ALAMEDA
Citation | 93 Cal.Rptr. 602,4 Cal.3d 354,482 P.2d 226 |
Decision Date | 23 March 1971 |
Docket Number | OAKLAND-ALAMEDA,S.F. 22763 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
Parties | , 482 P.2d 226, 1971 Trade Cases P 73,524 COUNTY BUILDERS' EXCHANGE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. F. P. LATHROP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. |
MacDonald, Brunsell & Walters and William Walters, Oakland, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Robert J. Foley, Foley, McIntosh & Foley, Foley, Saler & Doutt, Albany, William H. Orrick, Jr., and Orrick, Herrington, Rowley & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, for defendant and respondent.
Thomas C. Lynch and Evelle J. Younger, Attys. Gen., and Wallace Howland, Deputy Atty. Gen., as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and respondent.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment on the pleadings rendered in favor of defendant in their action for declaratory relief and damages for breach of the rules of a bid depository. We here determine whether certain of the rules of the bid depository constitute per se violations of the antitrust law of California.
Bid depositories are creations of the construction industry, generally established by construction trades subcontractors to control the process of submitting subbids to general contractors who are bidding on large construction jobs. The operation of a typical bid depository is succinctly described by a commentator as follows: 'A 'locked box' procedure is the most common method of depository operation. Subcontractors wishing to bid to one or more general contractors on a certain job submit bids in sealed envelopes to the depository. An envelope containing a bid addressed to each general contractor to whom the subcontractor wishes to bid is placed in the 'locked box,' and another envelope containing a copy of that bid is addressed to the depository itself and similarly deposited in the box or another secure receptacle. There will be a cut-off point, typically 4 hours or so before the prime bid opening time (I.e., the time by which all bids must be submitted to the owner or awarding authority), and after that cut-off point (or depository closing time) is reached, no more bids may be received, and none received may be amended or withdrawn.
The 'locked box' operation is said to serve several salutary purposes. It permits orderly preparation of bids and estimates by providing a reasonable time for computations, and thereby reduces error. Also, it tends to prevent 'bid piracy' which occurs when one subcontractor is able to avoid the expense of preparing his own bid by using the bid submitted by another subcontractor as a starting vehicle. Most importantly, it inhibits practices known variously as 'bid shopping,' 'bid peddling,' and 'bid chiseling.' These pejorative expressions appear to be used interchangeably to describe (1) the practice of a general contractor who, before the award of the prime contract, discloses to interested subcontractors the current low subbids on certain subcontracts in an effort to obtain lower subbids, (2) the identical practice of a general contractor engaged in after he has been awarded the prime contract, and (3) the practice of a subcontractor who determines the currently low subbid on a subcontract and then submits a lower bid to the general contractor in return for assurance from the general that the sub will receive the subcontract if the general is the successful prime bidder. (Id. at pp. 520--521; Schueller, Bid Depositories (1960) 58 Mich.L.Rev. 497, 498 and fn. 6, 499--500.) 1
Plaintiffs in the instant action are the Oakland-Alameda County Builders' Exchange, which operates a 'locked box' bid depository (Depository), and two subcontractors. Defendant is a general contractor. On March 1, 1966, defendant received bids from various subcontractors to be used by it in computing its prime bid for the construction of an auditorium at Chabot College. Most of the subbids received by defendant were submitted through the Depository. Defendant was awarded the construction contract, and it proceeded to award the various subcontracts on the basis of the bids received.
Plaintiff subcontractors had submitted their bids for the painting and floor covering work through the Depository, and their bids were the lowest placed through the Depository in their respective trade categories. Nevertheless, defendant did not accept the two bids because it had received lower painting and floor covering figures from two other subcontractors who had not submitted their offers through the Depository. As a consequence, defendant rejected the bids of plaintiff subcontractors and accepted the lower bids.
The Builders' Exchange and the two subcontractors brought suit against defendant, alleging that defendant had breached the rules of the Depository to which it had subscribed and that plaintiff subcontractors were entitled to damages. Defendant answered, admitted the rules of the Depository and its violation of them, but alleged that the rules were unenforceable because they constituted per se violations of the Cartwright Act, Business and Professions Code sections 16720, subdivisions (a) and (e)(4), and 16726. 2 The trial court agreed with defendant's contention and granted judgment on the pleadings to defendant on that basis.
The specific rules of the Oakland-Alameda Bid Depository which defendant and the Attorney General of California, by amicus curiae brief, contend are in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 16720 and 16726 are the following:
Rule 4. 'All bids submitted through the Bid Depository shall be actually delivered to the Bid Custodian by mail, or in person, or otherwise, as follows * * *.' The rule then sets forth a chart which establishes the Depository closing time as four hours prior to the prime opening time, when the prime bid opening time is between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. on a business day. When the prime bid opening time is between 9 a.m. and 12 noon, the Depository closing time is 4 p.m. on the working day immediately previous.
Rule 9a. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Cases
...v. Palsson, supra, 16 Cal.3d at pp. 930–931, 130 Cal.Rptr. 1, 549 P.2d 833 ; Oakland–Alameda County Builders' Exchange v. F.P. Lathrop Constr. Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 354, 360–362, 93 Cal.Rptr. 602, 482 P.2d 226.) "The per se rule reflects an irrebuttable presumption that, if the court were to ......
-
Freeman v. San Diego Assn. of Realtors
...at their level the benefits enjoyed by the members of the group. (See, e.g., Oakland-Alameda County Builders' Exchange v. F.P. Lathrop Constr. Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 354, 93 Cal.Rptr. 602, 482 P.2d 226 [contractors who participated in a bid depository agree to boycott contractors who were not ......
-
In re Copper Antitrust Litigation
...unlawful per se without regard to any of its effects." Id. at 511. Indeed, in Oakland-Alameda County Builders' Exchange v. F.P. Lathrop Constr. Co., 4 Cal.3d 354, 93 Cal.Rptr. 602, 482 P.2d 226 (1971), the state supreme court went so far as to hold that "[b]ecause the Cartwright Act is patt......
-
Kolling v. Dow Jones & Co.
...is unreasonably restrained and the practice is consequently illegal." (Oakland-Alameda County Builders Exchange v. F.P. Lathrop Constr. Co. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 354, 361, 93 Cal.Rptr. 602, 482 P.2d 226.) 7 Accordingly, as noted in Adolph Coors Co. v. F.T.C., supra, 497 F.2d 1178, 1184, citing Pe......
-
California. Practice Text
...Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 16 (1984)). 80. Oakland-Alameda County Builders’ Exch. v. F.P. Lathrop Constr. Co., 482 P.2d 226, 230-31 (Cal. 1971) ( citing N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. U.S., 356 U.S. 1, 5 (1958)); Suburban Mobile Homes , 101 Cal. App. 3d at 541-42. California 6-9 pres......
-
The Magna Carta and the Sherman Act
...Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 21 Cal. 3d 431, 453 (1978); Oakland-Alameda County Builders' Exch. v. F.P. Lathrop Constr. Co., 4 Cal. 3d 354, 361 (1971).Comparing the Sherman Act to the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights may seem a curious choice to the modern antitrust lawyer or ec......
-
Epic v. Apple: Amicus Brief of the State of California in Support of Neither Party
...and be against public[Page 50]policy under California law. In Oakland-Alameda County Builders' Exch. v. F. P. Lathrop Constr. Co., 4 Cal. 3d 354 (1971) (Lathrop), the California Supreme Court explained that an agreement that "directly interfere[d] with the free play of market forces" by "im......