Court Opinion

ID: 9653412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:46:23.79646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:59.012477
License: Public Domain

McCORD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I think the exchange of telegrams constituted an offer and acceptance, and that the finding and conclusion of the trial court that there was no contract is clearly erroneous.
Fa.yret, a general contractor, invited Williams, a subcontractor, to submit a bid on the electrical work at the U. S. Naval Training Center at Gulfport, Mississippi. Favret 'and Williams were strangers to each other, but each was familiar with the procedure for the award of government contracts on such projects, and both of them knew that the general contractor’s overall bid would be opened along with other bids at 11 a. m. on June 6, 1944. Knowing that bids would be opened on June 6, 1944, Williams made his bid and advised Favret: “If our estimate used wire us collect prior to June 6 or else same is withdrawn.” I think it clear that this language meant that Williams was not willing to leave his. offer to the general contractor hanging in, mid air, but that he wanted to have it accepted or rejected prior to the submission* of the general contractor’s bid. Favret, an, experienced .contractor, understood this, qualification of Williams’ bid, and, accordingly, moved to protect himself on, June 6, 1944, by sending Williams a telegram advising him: “We used your bid" for wiring on barracks and dispensary Gulfport.” The telegram was sent by Harold Favret, the son and apparent agent of the general contractor. Harold Favret testified that his father authorized him to. send the telegram. On that same morning,, Harold Favret called Williams by long distance telephone and discussed the bid.
The bid of Favret on the project was accepted by the Government and he received the contract. Williams learned that the-contract had been awarded to Favret and: he set about ordering supplies and making; arrangements to carry out his end of .the-work. He heard nothing from Favret about, starting the work, and it was not until June-28, 1944, in' answer to a letter of inquiry,, that Favret advised Williams that he had, given the electrical work to someone else., Favret advised Williams that the reason he-gave the work to someone else was because-“your bid * * * was found to be incomplete.” But the bid was not incomplete,, and Favret had not previously complained.. Indeed, Williams’ bid was used by Favret as a basis in the general bid which was accepted by the government. The excuse that the bid was incomplete is but an obvious afterthought excuse for avoiding a. solemn agreement. The fact is that Favret,. after accepting Williams’ bid, shopped *825around and found that he could get someone else to do the work at a lower price. That a more advaniageous contract could be entered into, should not permit the abrogation of a valid and binding contract already entered into.
I think the exchange of telegrams, viewed in their proper setting, clearly demonstrates that it was the purpose and intention of the parties to create an effective ■and binding contract between them, conditioned only on Favret being awarded the general contract. Williams made his offer, and after Favret advised him within the time limit that he was using it in his general bid, Williams was bound; and after Favret was awarded the government contract, Williams could not withdraw his ■offer, he could not change his price, he had to do the work at Favret’s call. The testimony of Harold Favret clearly shows that the telegram was sent to Williams for the purpose of holding him to his bid:
“Q. You were wanting to hold Mr. Williams to'his bid? Correct? A. Flere is the point. Mr. Williams threatened to withdraw that bid prior to the time we submitted our bids, which, if we banked on his bid entirely, and he withdrew it, it would cause us to be in error in our estimate.”
Could Williams be bound and Favret remain free to do as he pleased? I know of no such one-sided application, hornbook or otherwise, of the law of contracts.
I agree with the majority opinion that it is hornbook law that an offer does not ripen into a contract until there is an acceptance. But here there was an offer and an acceptance. If the exchange of telegrams did not establish offer and acceptance, what was their purpose and meaning? It is also hornbook law, and in Louisiana the statute law as well, that a contract may be made by more than one instrument; that agreements are construed as a whole; that the construction placed upon an agreement by the parties furnishes a rule for interpretation; and that the terms of the agreement “must be taken in the sense most congruous to the matter of the contract.” La.Civil Code, Arts. 1955, 1956, 1952.
In this record we do not have the benefit of the evidence of Lionel F. Favret, the general contractor, for he did not testify. We do have the evidence of his son, Harold Favret, who was his estimator and who sent the telegram of acceptance to Williams with his father’s consent. Harold Favret hits the nail on the head when he says he wanted to hold Williams to his bid because “if we banked on his bid entirely, and he withdrew it, it would cause us to be in error in our estimate.”
To my mind this is simply a case where a contract was made and one of the parties withdrew because he found later that a better and more favorable contract could be made with someone else. To allow Favret to .thus welch on his contract is unthinkable.
The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. I respectfully dissent.