California Court of Appeal

In a suit brought by a general subcontractor against a subcontractor, on a theory of promissory estoppel seeking the difference between defendant's bid and the amount plaintiff was required to pay the replacement subcontractor, the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not reasonably rely on defendant's bid price without considering the material conditions stated in defendant's bid; and 2) plaintiff failed to show there was no substantial evidence to support the court's conclusion that the proposed subcontract plaintiff sent defendant constituted a counteroffer because it contained material variations from the conditions in defendant's bid, and such counteroffer gave defendant the right to withdraw its bid.

Appellate Information

• Published 2016/07/19

Judges

• ALDRICH

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel