Court Opinion

ID: 9685475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:41:51.559802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:06.688813
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
I share Justice Streit’s view that the competitive-bidding laws did apply to Bluestem in contracting for the methane/leachate system. Thus, the majority is wrong in upholding EnviroGas’s contract claim.
I disagree with Justice Streit, however, on whether the trial court’s judgment based on alleged fraud should be upheld. I submit that it should not be. When public entities choose to violate the competitive-bidding laws, they will almost always give assurances to the noncompetitive bidder that the acceptance of that bid is proper. If such assurances are deemed to constitute actionable fraud on the part of the public entity, then the competitive-bidding law will serve no purpose in protecting the taxpayers.
With respect to the claim that Blues-tem’s agent knowingly misrepresented his spending authority, that is beside the point. If, as Justice Streit and I contend, any spending on the project would have been in violation of the public-bidding laws, the extent of the agent’s spending authority may not be made the basis of an action for fraud.
I would hold that EnviroGas has no claim against Bluestem and reverse the judgment for damages against it.