Court Opinion

ID: 9851191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:08:39.093645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:51.073102
License: Public Domain

Beasley, J.
(concurring). I concur in this opinion, but add the following comments.
No oral argument was made on behalf of defendant city; I believe it might have been helpful. Like the writer of the concurring opinion in Valentini v City of Adrian, 347 Mich 530; 79 NW2d 885 (1956), I am concerned lest this result be interpreted as precedent for encouraging public contractors to seek to convert their fixed price contracts to a kind of cost plus fee contract by the device of claiming *236the public body had information which it did not disclose to the bidder.
I would hold public contractors to find out for themselves matters of public record and limit this decision to its unusual fact situation.