Court Opinion

ID: 9645426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:24:26.756856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:28.211464
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Greenhill,
joined by Justices Walker and Norvell, concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority.
It seems to me that under the peculiar facts of this case, there are two issues of fact: (1) was a mistake in fact made; and (2) was the mistake, if any, a remediable one.
The majority holds that the first issue is raised. It also says, “Generally it is only when negligence amounts to such carelessness or lack of good faith in calculation which violates a positive duty in making a bid, taking into consideration the nature of the transaction and the position of the opposite party, that equitable relief be denied.” In accordance with that principle, the second issue should inquire whether such mistake was caused by the failure to exercise at least that minimum desree of care which a public authority, in the position of the district, may reasonably expect all of its bidders to exercise, in the light of the circumstances of the transaction and the practices of the trade. 3 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed.) 340.
As I construe the opinion of the majority, it says the second issue might be raised upon the trial. Under the record as it reaches us, I think the issue was raised; and if like evidence be adduced on another trial, the issue should be submitted.
Opinion delivered April 27, 1960.
Rehearing overruled June 1, 1960.