Case Title: STUART CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. Vulcan Life Ins. Co.

Citation: 285 So. 2d 920

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1973-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
285 So. 2d 920 (1973)
STUART CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a corp.
v.
VULCAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., a corp., et al.
S.C. 387.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 15, 1973.
Rehearing Denied December 13, 1973.
*921 James L. Shores, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
Wilters & Brantley, Bay Minette, and John S. Foster, Birmingham, for appellee, Vulcan Life Ins. Co.
Inge, Twitty, Duffy & Prince and E. L. McCafferty, III, Mobile, for appellee Fred Renneker, Jr., and Associates, Inc.
Balch, Bingham, Baker, Hawthorne, Williams & Ward and Edward S. Allen, Birmingham, for appellee Brasfield & Gorrie, Inc.
FAULKNER, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit entered by the Circuit Court of Baldwin County on motion of Stuart Construction Co., Inc., after the court sustained demurrers to the amended complaint.
The amended complaint is as follows:
The issue before us is whether Stuart's amended complaint alleged conduct by Vulcan, Renneker, and Brasfield which amounted to an interference with business expectancy pursuant to a civil conspiracy. We agree with the lower court. The demurrers should be sustained.
All parties here are private corporations. There is no statute or body of case law in this State requiring private corporations to engage in competitive bidding. When a private corporation invites *923 contractors to submit bids for the construction of a building, that corporation is under no duty to award the contract to the lowest qualified bidder, unless a statute or ordinance so requires. Mitchell v. Walden Motor Co., 235 Ala. 34, 177 So. 151 (1937).
From the allegations of the amended complaint it does not appear that Vulcan was under a duty to award the contract to Stuart or any other bidder. There is no allegation that Vulcan did not have the right to reject Stuart's bid. Indeed, all that Stuart alleges in this regard is that it expected Vulcan would "fairly and honorably award the construction contract to the low bidder." There is a further allegation that "Vulcan instructed its building committee to study the bids and award the building contract to the lowest qualified bidder." There is a difference between low bidder and lowest qualified bidder. It was Vulcan's right to decide for itself who was the lowest qualified bidder. In examining the complaint further we do not find that Stuart was even the lowest bidder. All that is alleged is that Stuart's bid was lower than Brasfield's bid. Stuart does not allege that any promise or inducement was made by Vulcan to Stuart to get it to submit a bid. There was not alleged any business relationship between Stuart and Vulcan. Boiled down to its practical situation, it was, "You pays your money, and you takes your choice."
This court has defined conspiracy as a combination to accomplish an unlawful end or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. Barber v. Stephenson, 260 Ala. 151, 69 So. 2d 251 (1954); Gaines v. Malone, 244 Ala. 490, 13 So. 2d 870 (1943).
We have never held that there is any civil liability for a conspiracy unless there is an actionable wrong. This court in O'Dell v. State, 270 Ala. 236, 117 So. 2d 164 (1959) said:
The complaint failed to allege any actionable wrong, and since there appears to be no actionable wrong committed against Stuart in this case, an action for civil conspiracy standing alone will not lie.
Affirmed.
COLEMAN, HARWOOD, McCALL and JONES, JJ., concur.