~of &~pa+lng assessment levied upon his property as a .Testilt~ of ~thls -cohtract, 'upon the theory that the %ont.ract~.was'vold for lack of competltlye bidding. The Supreme'Coure of,Ml'chig&n 'In ~1868'.hQd against him In a well-reasoded opJnlon;~~ The Cqurt &Id that.ln many cases the nature cif.the work ls~so'coinpll~ated'or expensive that there would be'only 'one'or two In a posi,tl.oti to submit a 'bid; atid In' the event'that onlk'one such peeson did submit a bid, the City could.accefit It and let,the 'contraqt. In th%s. * situation the Courts could n*& declare sQch.'a. contract void simply because no benefits accrued'by the' a@pllcatlon of the rule reqtilring competitive bidding, and nelther,,i,does the fa.ct that.such a ,result Is ln&vltable from,the beginning--only;one possible bld'der and no posslblIlty of the aticrual of benefits from competitive bidding-- render the contract'~capable of being declared vold.by'the Courts. The court also said that a strict .appllcatlon of the compet1tiv.e bldd~ng~.P~qulrement would result .ln allowlng:a monopoly,ln regard .t? any necessary article to suspend necessary',,and ur&en,t .. .It was further stated that' just because there 1s a'monopoly of a certain article, that does not preclude competitive bidding, * a.
.. -
Hoborabli D&Crouch, page 5 '(WW-579)
.i . because othe,r&,m&y bid and take the rlsks'oS securing the right of using the lnventl6ti-,-the right being 8~marketable item Itself, I.e., that mbre than done bid 1s~:posslble. The Court wou1.d not'~construs~,t.he ordlntince so as~$o preclude the use of new: lnventionsl,or procss?es,., ,;~. .', '. .The~.followlng~'Zear~'the &prime .CoUrt-'of Wl&bnsin adopted,the. a'ppb~lt'~':.~Se~..~:in~a~'cnd~,'wher~:Mi~:facts',werer ~slrnll&~.to~ the w.chlgan .cari@:;~::.@eai! ..v. Xtirltbh;' 23,.Wi?. 590 and.$g,.?.peFi 2!5),:' !'~';:.;.j : : '. ( ',.Thls..pr6b$im, hae'b,&n~pfesent6d to' tithe Courts of T&as on& oilce.~ Ini~tha~t'das;e, Vllblg Bros..v: Cltxof Dallas, '91..B...ti.t..2d'336,~'.the- C.lty of :pallas, purpuant to 'a clty~ord~nande'vihlcki~req~l~red;~compet~tlve bidding, adver- '. tised for'bids: In vhl'bh lt..w& specified that' bids .may be' si.$rn~.tt~d .lnl:.a'o~ordand'a.:wi'th~~~:,8ny,,bne ~'of' flyi alternate .'~ : ~.. methpds of gaving; ~. '~.The ..X.lst :IixQuded ,t@?ee;patented prop- .: cesses'&nd w~...non~patented,',p~oc.~saes.. In +n. :?pl~nlon .wrlt.- ten by the Co~rnl~~~~n.~~~.'Appsa~s~ and ado,~tad.,bJr,'th,e..Suprems Cau.rt,lt wa$,,'heId FFat .thg?e ,&&~~f$batlc+ jy,,ep&'Lnot .vlo- lativ~..of.t~~,,"chm?eti'ti~~ ;bidd~~gl,requlrement;,:,iThe Csurt : "_. -:
,clt&d.Hobai;t'rcrr; .City of'Detti61t,:,su~tia,-w.l%h-apparent~,apT : : prdval, and quoted .3~~~nl~lpal-'CorDol'atlons; 2d Edlt.lon, S&tiori, 1299,. as fpU.ow.s.:~- i::' z. :. .. :~ ~'"f.: ..' ', Although the poker to .s.&ci$y .& p.a$en'ted ar!icYe:or process.Under laws reqirirl.qs:.'competltive bldd$ng,ls denied, a8 ti gerieral pr~~po~.~tl~n;:~~~.a~nu~~er,~of.,jurls-~ dic~tljotis; the broad ~pti.opdsi.tlon that 'a ',*,.:~ " patented articles or~.ijro,qe.gs may be ~spe.clf$ed under the.reqti~rement;:o~.'competltlve bidding' Is g+erally'sustained'~~hd.thls tipfietirs,to,be the. b&t+ rule.: Therefore, It is%&nerallz. ~helti'that.lf all~the.competltlon l;S permitted of'whlch the..sltuation alloti&,, a patented artlcle'or grocess..may'be specified.! ~'(Fmgtisi's oul's I: ':. : : :; :.:,: "'The l&?& r&a&n',.' It. i~'&bmlt%.ed, for., iihe iGl&u&iolding~ municipal..authorlties'in speclfyi,ng:~.pate~ted~~'mat'6~lal~~~r :a.rtlcles .is that to~hcild otlierwlse'would defeat the',very ' ~ :pticptisecof the 'le&isiative proviilons.requlring~ contraqt&.to be'let to -the lowest responsible bldd&after..advertlsemen't.~ The~purpose,bfl these provls,$on.s Is to prot,ect the public ..
; , Honorable Doug Crouch, page 6 '(WW-579)
Interests. They do this by requiring bids to be advertised forand the contract'to be let ~to .- the lowest and best, or lowest.responslble, bid-. der. But this specificrequirement isonly Incidental to the