SmartBrief
0
Confirm favorite deletion?
Contracts Keyed to Summers
Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
Citation:
51 Cal. 2d 409, 333 P.2d 757
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Drennan (plaintiff), a general contractor, prepared a bid for a construction project for a local school. Drennan’s bid had to include the names of subcontractors who were to perform one-half of one per cent or more of the work, and he also had to provide a bidder’s bond as a guarantee he would enter the contract if awarded the work for the school. It was customary in the area for general contractors to receive bids from subcontractors by telephone on the day set for bidding, and for the general contractor to rely on such bids when computing his or her own bid. Drennan’s secretary received between 50 and 75 subcontractors’ bids by telephone. Star Paving Company (“Star”) (defendant) submitted a bid for $7,131.60 by telephone and it repeated the bid amount to Drennan’s secretary. Star’s bid proved to be the lowest and it was awarded the contract. The next morning, Star informed Drennan that it had made a mistake in their bid and refused to do the paving work for less than $15,000. Drennan spent several months trying to get as low of a bid as possible and eventually found a firm to do the paving work for $10,948.60. Drennan sued Star for damages caused by its refusal to perform the paving work. Star argued that it had the right to revoke its bid. The trial court awarded Drennan damages for the difference between Star’s bid and the actual cost of the paving.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.
12m 9s
