Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-08-03
MAY WITHDRAW THE BID
OPINION RESPECTING PROPOSAL IN
WHICH MISTAKE OCCURRED.
Matter of Interest to Contractors for
District Work - Former
Ruling Reversed.

Mr.. A. B. Duvall, the attorney for the
District, has rendered an opinion In the
case of B. F. Mockabee, local contractor.
which will be of more than usual interest
to those contracting with the municipality.
Several weeks ago Mr.. Mockabee submitted
a proposal to the Commissioners in which
he offered to construct an eight-room public
school house in the northeast section Of the
city. When all the bids had been opened.
II was found that Mr.. Mockab bees offer was
the lowest. But within an hour thereafter
Mr.. Mockabee discovered that he had made
a mistake of fact in his bid and that but for
this mistake his proposal would have been
several thousand dollars higher. Before
the acceptance by the Commissioners of
any of the proposals. Mr. Mockabee wrote
the Engineer Commissioner Capt. Beach,
who has immediate supervision of building
matters, concerning the error. and there
after filed explanatory affidavits of himself
and clerk, stating that on account OF the
error he desired to recall his bid.
Capt. Beach had no reason to doubt Mr.
Mockabee's statement, but, upon consulting
with Mr. Duvall, was advised that the bid,
which was perfect in form and good on it's
face. could not be recalled for an alleged
mistake made by the bidder. This. ex-
planned Mr.. Duvall at the time. seemed to
be the rule of law as laid down in the text
books, and supported, he then thought. by
authorities Mr.. Mockabee was thereupon
awarded the contract, whereupon he en-
gagged as counsel Mr.. S. T. Thomas, Mr..
Duvalis predecessor, who formally re-
quested that his client be permitted to
withdraw his bid.
Result OF Further Examination.
Mr.. Duvall made a further examination
of the question. reporting to the Commits
sioners that upon further examination he
satisfied himself that the law is otherwise
than at first stated by him. In this con-
nection Mr.. Duvall referred TO u recent
case in the United States Supreme Court,
that of Moffett, Eodgkins and Clarke Com
pany against the city of Rochester, a case
not yet reported. In that case states Mr..
Duvall. by a mistake of its engineer. the
complainant bid 10 cents per cubic yard for
earth excavation In open trenches when
1t intended to bid 40 cents. and S1.!0 cents
for earth excavation in tunnel when il in
tended to bid S15.
The proof of the mistakes was clear and
undisputed, and the error was called to the
attention OF the executive board when the
BID was opened, and before the city au-
thorities had done anything to alter its con-
dition. In deciding this case the Supreme
Court said: The rule between individuals
Is that, until a propose be accepted 1t may
be Withdrawn, and If this principle cannot
be applied in the pending case. on account
of the charter of the city. there is certain
ly nothing in the charter which forbids
ments of a contract
Quotation From Court Record.
The court held. says Mr.. Duvall, that the
contract, proposal and acceptance. and
quoted with approval the following Ian
guage of the circuit court:
THE bill proceeds upon the theory that
the bid upon which the defendants acted
was not the complainants bid; that the
complainant was more responsible for it
than II 1t had been the result of agraphia
or the mistake of copyist or printer. In
other words. that the proposal read at the
meeting of the board was which the
complainant never intended to make, and
that the minds of the parties never met
upon a contract based thereon. If the de-
PENDANTS are correct in their contention.
there is absolutely no redress for bidder
for public work, no matter how aggravated
or palpable his hlunder The moment his
proposal is opened by the executive board
he IS held as in a grasp of steel. There is
of his clerk. he has agreed to do work
worth 81 oo",po for $40 he must be held to
the strict letter of his contract. while equity
stands by with folded hands and sees him
driven To bankruptcy. The defendants
position admits of no compromise. no ex-
ception. no middle ground
The Supreme Court says Mr.. Duvall,
accordingly reversed the decree of the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the second
circuit l consider that this case aulhorl-
tatiNeiy answers in the affirmative the
question whether before a bin is accepted.
II may be recalled by the bidder because of
q mistake bona fide made by him in his bid
] am. therefore, of the opinion that Mr.
N0ckabee. under the circumstances. is en-
titled to recall and withdraw his bid"
This opinion of their legal adviser the
Commissioners are expected to approve. in
which case ii Is believed that the contract
for the construction Of the school house in
question will he awarded to Mr. J. NJ
Dunn. who is said to have been the next
lowest bidder.