Court Opinion

ID: 9645425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:24:26.753453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:28.210940
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Griffin,
concurring.
I agree in the affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, but not on the grounds stated.
In my opinion, the Court of Civil Appeals stated the correct rule of law when it said, “* * * The general rule is that though a contract has been formed by the acceptance of an offer — in view of the legal control of the objective appearance of the mistaken contractor’s acts, — nevertheless the contractor may avoid the obligations of the contract if he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mistake was non-negligent and that the Board suspected that a mistake had been made * * * .”
In this case had the. contractor used one of the adding machines in his office to total his figures and had he checked his work on the adding machine slip, an error would have been discovered.
Public bodies have a right to expect that those who submit *627bids have submitted correct bids. It is the duty of the public body to let the bids to the lowest bidder who is financially responsible. In the case at hand, the School Board called the attention of the petitioner’s representative to the fact that petitioner was some $35,000 to $40,000 low and asked the repre7 sentative if they were sure they could do the job on the bid rendered. It was only after receiving such assurance that petition7 er’s offer was accepted and the bid was let to petitioner. I think the equities are on the side of the School District and that the reasons given by the Court of Civil Appeals correctly declare the law when applied to the facts of this case. See also the case of State Highway Commission v. Canion, Texas Civ. App., 1952, 250 S.W. 2d 439, er. ref., n.r.e.
Opinion delivered April 27, 1960.