C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. Sterling-Salem Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Concurrence
MERRILL, Circuit Judge, with whom BROWNING, Circuit Judge, joins,
concurring :
I concur in Judge Real’s opinion for additional reasons.
California law controls this diversity case.1 The California courts have recognized the principles of the original section 90 in holding that when a contractor (promisee), in submitting a construction bid, relies upon the offer of a subcontractor (promisor) to perform part of the work, that reliance makes the subcontractor’s offer irrevocable, see Drennan v. Star Paving Co., 51 Cal.2d 409, 333 P.2d 757 (1958), at least for a reasonable time, see H. W. Stanfield…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Drennan v. Star Paving Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Southern California Acoustics Co. v. C. V. Holder, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1969
- Burgess v. California Mutual Building & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Aronowicz v. Nalley's, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1972
- Lear v. BishopNevada Supreme Court · 1970
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.