Legal Opinion · Dissent

Petrovich v. City of Arcadia

California Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 1950No. L. A. 20761Published

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent.

The interpretation placed upon the transaction by the majority opinion is unsupportable. It is conceded that the city could lawfully have provided for a forfeiture or liability of the full amount of the bid bond, and there is no doubt about it—(Palo and Dodini v. City of Oakland, 79 Cal.App.2d 739 [180 P.2d 764]). The issue is wholly one of interpretation. Desiring to have constructed a sewer system, the city called for bids. In its invitation for bids it was stated that each bid must be accompanied by “either a cashier’s check or bid bond” for 10 per cent of the bid “made payable”…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Pulcifer v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Wheaton Building & Lumber Co. v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
  3. Palo and Dodini v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  4. Wells Lamont Corporation v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1945
  5. First Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. StuppiCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1924

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API