Source: http://masscases.com/cases/app/3/3massappct399.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:47:11+00:00

Document:
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. vs. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF BURLINGTON & another.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on May 15, 1974.
The suit was heard by Ponte, J., on demurrer.
David P. Skerry (Charles R. Bennett with him) for the plaintiff.
David Berman, Town Counsel, for the School Committee of Burlington, submitted a brief.
Anthony Galluccio, for the Department of Labor and Industries, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
ARMSTRONG, J. On April 9, 1974, the defendant school committee awarded a contract for the furnishing and installation of carpeting in a school to the defendant John Keene, doing business as Keene Carpets Co. (Keene), notwithstanding the lower bid submitted by the plaintiff (Sears). Sears brought this bill in which it sought a declaration that the award was invalid under the provisions of G. L. c. 149, Section 44A, an injunction against the performance of the contract, an order that the contract be awarded to Sears, and general relief. The Superior Court sustained a demurrer to the bill on the grounds that it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and that the plaintiff had a plain and adequate remedy at law. Thereafter, a final decree entered (1) again sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, (2) declaring that the award of the contract was governed by G. L. c. 40, Section 4B, and not by G. L. c. 149, Section 44A-L, and that the award of the contract to Keene was valid, and (3) dismissing the bill. The case is before us on Sears' appeal from the final decree.
review. Secretary of Environmental Affairs v. Massachusetts Port Authy. 366 Mass. 755 , 772 (1975), and cases cited. The existence of a remedy at law, adequate or not, is immaterial. Fred C. McClean Heating Supplies, Inc. v. Westfield Trade High School Bldg. Comm. of Westfield, 345 Mass. 267 , 270 (1962). The bill should not have been dismissed. Vasilakis v. Haverhill, 339 Mass. 97 , 101 (1959).
It follows that the interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrer and those portions of the final decree again sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill are in error. The final decree, however, is anomalous, in that it also makes declarations of the rights of the parties wholly dispositive of the case. We turn to an examination of the bill to determine whether the facts alleged by Sears, if established (no answer having yet been filed), would entitle Sears to a more favorable declaration.
. . . by any governmental unit . . . [of the Commonwealth], estimated to cost . . . more than two thousand dollars . . . shall be awarded to the lowest responsible and eligible general bidder . . . ."
The bill alleges that the contract is one for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, remodelling or repair of a building.
It is clear that if these allegations are true the award of the contract to Keene violated the provisions of Section 44A, as the Commissioner found, and that Sears would be entitled to a declaration accordingly. It cannot be said as matter of law that the installation of wall to wall carpeting by cementing it to a floor is not "alteration" or "remodeling." Those are primarily questions of fact. It is conceivable that there may be contracts to furnish and install in which the element of installation is so insubstantial in relation to the total contract as to warrant a finding that the contract is essentially one for the supply of goods only. In such a case the provisions of G. L. c. 40, Section 4B, [Note 1] might alone govern, and the awarding of the contract would be "left to the reasonable judgment of the municipal officers charged with responsibility therefor." Archambault v. Mayor of Lowell, 278 Mass. 327 , 332 (1932). Deary v. Dudley, 343 Mass. 192 , 194 (1961). But it cannot be said on the allegations of the bill that this is such a contract. It follows that the declarations in the final decree are without foundation.
is not tenable for the reasons stated in Paul Sardella Constr. Co. Inc. v. Braintree Housing Authy. ante, 326, 331-335 (1975), which had not been decided when the contention was made. Interlocutory decree sustaining demurrer reversed.
Case to stand for trial.
[Note 1] "Unless otherwise provided by by-law or special law in towns and districts, no contract for the purchase of equipment, supplies or materials, the actual or estimated cost of which amounts to two thousand dollars or more . . . shall be awarded unless . . . [specified bidding procedures are followed]." This section "does not require award to the lowest responsible bidder." Gosselin's Dairy, Inc. v. School Comm. of Holyoke, 348 Mass. 793 (1965).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.