Opinion ID: 1429035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cook was reasonably able to discover the true facts for himself.

Text: The key term in this part of the test is reasonableness. This does not require each contractor to hire expert analysts [30] or to conduct other tremendously expensive tests. [31] If every bidder were required to make his own complete investigation of every detail although the chances of receiving the bid were remote, the number of bids would decrease and the dollar amount of the bids would increase. [32] By the same token, a government does not become an insurer merely by providing some information. [33] Courts have required contractors to make soil borings, [34] to conduct on-site investigations, [35] and to check available records. [36] The length of time the contractor has available to make his own investigation is an important factor in these cases. [37] In the case at bar Cook had a four-to-five-month period to inspect the site before he submitted his bid. Cases cited by Cook in support of his argument that a proper investigation is irrelevant to the State's duty to disclose are unpersuasive. [38] Reliance is a necessary element of a misrepresentation claim. [39] The contractor in this case was not forced to rely upon the soil borings furnished him because there was sufficient time for him to make his own investigation. [40] The burden of proof cast on Cook the duty to prove whether he could have discovered the correct facts about the subsoil through a reasonable investigation prior to the contract. [41] Cook failed to produce a single witness to testify that the wet soil condition was not detectable upon inspection. All other bidders who testified in the case were able to determine by means of a reasonable inspection that the soil was wet. [42]