Court Opinion

ID: 9737968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:38:45.403154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:02.939433
License: Public Domain

STONE, J.
I dissent. As I view the rules of the Inland Bid Depository they do not violate the Business and Professions Code sections mentioned in the majority opinion, which sections are, in essence, codifications of the Cartwright Act. The core of the difficulty lies in the fact that only one contract for an entire job is let to the general contractor. If the electrical, heating, plumbing, sheet metal, plastering, or any other subcontractor, wants to do business at all, he must do it with the general contractor. This control over subcontractors by general contractors has led to instances of “bid peddling” and “bid chiseling.”
*865The purpose of the bid depository is not to create a monopoly for the subcontractors, but to protect them from economic oppression by those who hold the power to give or deny a subcontract. I do not view concerted action to counterbalance economic bargaining power as either monopolistic in purpose or in restraint of trade. As the majority opinion points out, the federal courts have held there is no violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by subcontractors who enter into bid depository agreements similar to the one here.
To delete the four-hour provision from the rules before us is to defeat the basic purpose of the bid depository system. This emasculation of the depository principle can be justified only by holding that the agreement violates the Cartwright Act, a holding with which I cannot agree.
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 24, 1965. Stone, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.