Younglove v. Hoberg
| Decision Date | 13 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 35095 |
| Citation | 191 N.W. 985,195 Iowa 281 |
| Parties | J. E. YOUNGLOVE, Appellee, v. OSCAR J. HOBERG et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--W. G. SEARS, Judge.
ACTION at law, to recover $ 1,500 deposited with a bid for the construction of a certain building as a guaranty that plaintiff would enter into a contract if the same was awarded to him. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Henderson Fribourg & Hatfield, for appellants.
H. W Brackney and E. J. Stason, for appellee.
The appellant Hoberg, acting for himself and others, solicited of certain contractors and builders in Sioux City, bids for the construction of a certain building. The specifications called for sealed bids, to be received by Hoberg up to 1:30 P. M. on July 12, 1921, and required that each bid must be accompanied by a certified check in the sum of $ 1,500, as a guaranty that the bidder was ready to enter into a contract for the installation of the work. The check was to be forfeited if the successful bidder should fail to enter into a contract. Appellee submitted a bid in writing within the time named, and accompanied the same by a certified check for $ 1,500. There were five bidders, besides the appellee. At the hour fixed, the bids were opened and examined by J. R. Carter, who was acting under written authority from Hoberg. It was then discovered that appellee's bid was the lowest bid. Hoberg being out of the city, Carter then announced to those present, including some of the bidders, that the result would not be made known until the next morning, after Hoberg had returned, which would be about 9 o'clock. On the following morning, just as Carter was leaving his office for the train, to meet Hoberg, he was met by appellee's son, who handed him a letter. It appears that this letter had first been taken to the office of the architect where the bids were submitted, and appellee's son had been directed to take the same to Carter. The letter was dated July 13, 1921, and recited that appellee had been misinformed on material, and stated:
It is the contention of the appellee that, at the time of the delivery of this letter to Carter, his son informed Carter that, if appellee could not increase the bid previously made, he would have to withdraw it altogether. There is a dispute in the evidence as to exactly what was said between these parties at this time. The check of $ 1,500 does not appear to have been mentioned in this conversation. Very shortly thereafter, Hoberg arrived, and, together with Carter and other parties, went to the office of the architect and examined the bids. Appellee's son was immediately advised by telephone that the bid had been awarded to the appellee, and he went to the office of the architect where the parties then were, and was again notified that the contract had been awarded to appellee. Younglove requested an hour's time to consider in regard to the matter, and subsequently returned, and advised the parties that he did not have to enter into a contract, and would not do so. The contract was subsequently awarded to the next lowest bidder.
I. Appellant contends that appellee's action cannot be maintained at law, because of the claim that it is predicated upon a mistake alleged to have been made by the appellee in submitting his bid. We do not so construe the petition. The appellee is not seeking to be released from a building contract because of a mistake in making his estimates as the basis for his bid. He is seeking to recover the amount of the check deposited by him, on the theory that no contract whatever was entered into between the parties, and, therefore, that there could be no forfeiture of the check. His contention is that the offer contained in his bid was not accepted until after the same had been withdrawn, and that, therefore, no contract was formed between the parties.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial