The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-04-13

ed by you for an opinion as to whether the city has become oblig- ed by your action in awarding to The&Silliman & Godfrey Co., a con- tract for furnishing material for street paving. The essential facts, as I understand them, are as fol- lows: An advertisement was pub lished by you, inviting proposals for furnishing said material, name ly wood block, the same to be in accordance with certain specified tions furnished by you. The Silli- man & Godfrey Co.,, in response to such invitation, submitted pro- proper form, for supplying such material as specified. The pro- posal of this company was accept ed by you and your committee voted to award the contract to- said company and this action was en- tered on the records of the com mittee. The company was noti- fled of this acceptance.
 You now ask whether the city has become bound by this proceed ing on your part and whether you have exhausted your authority in the matter or whether you still have the legal right to rescind your action and award the contract to some other bidder.
 In answering this query, I would first direct your attention to the city ordinance. which requires all contracts. involving an expenditure of over $2O0, to be awarded to "the lowest responsible bidder.'' As I understand it, the price proposed by The Silliman & Godfrey Co. was not the lowest. Whatever power the Common Council might have to waive the provisions of this ordinance, I do rot think that your nr7y,1iffaa yU0,1Id G11nh authority. The ordinance referred to is valid law of the city and is operative and binding on your com- mittee in making such a contract. If you have overlooked or entirely ignored this ordinance, you would not only have the right, but it would be your duty to reconsider your action, because in so making the award you would have violated the law and exceeded your author ity.
 If on the other hand, you had this requirement in mind and in view of all the conditions, and in the light of the knowledge which you possessed or obtained relative to the other bidders and the material manufactured or offered by them, you have in good faith determined that The Silliman & Godfrey Go. was the lowest responsible bidder, then you have in my judgment ex- ercised a discretionary power with which the courts would not inter {, fere.
 If these legal prerequisites have been complied with, then, in my opinion, your action in accepting the prosopal of the said company and in awarding the contract to it and having your action entered of record, creates a binding contract against the city. This view is in accord with the weight of author ity.
 ''It is usually held that, without the execution of a formal contract upon proof of the making of a bid and it's formal acceptance made of record, an enforceable contract will exist between such public corpora ton and the one whose bid or pro- posaI was accepted"
 Abbot on Municipal Corporations, Vol. 1, Sec. 263.
 After the acceptance of a bid such acceptance cannot be recon sidered and revoked, for the reason that it has become a contract ex- cept for some legal cause sufff- cient to render the acceptance void or voidable.
 Smith on Municipal Corporations, Vol. 1, Sec. TAG.
 State ex rel. Furniture Go. vs. Toole, 55 L. R. A. 644.
 Safety Wire & Cable Go. vs. Bal timore, 66 Fed. Rep. 140.
 Madison vs. Moore, 109 Iowa 476.
 Stanley vs. Freeholders Passaic County, 60 N. J. Law 3s2.
 Argent vs. San Francisco. 16 Cal.