Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Commonwealth v. On-Point Technology Systems, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 30, 2005No. 264 MAP 2003Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Justice SAYLOR,
concur and dissent.
I agree with the Commonwealth Court that Appellant has failed to establish that it was a party to a consummated procurement contract with the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth, DGS v. On-Point Technology Systems, Inc., 821 A.2d 641, 649 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). Nevertheless, I would uphold the Board of Claims’ determination that the parties entered into a valid and binding agreement to negotiate in good faith. See On-Point Technology Systems, Inc. v. Commonwealth, DOR, No. 2267, slip op., at 26 (Board of Claims Mar. 21, 2002). I believe that the Board’s finding in this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Shovel Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Flight Systems, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Planning & Design Solutions v. City of Santa FeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
- Commonwealth, Department of General Services v. On-Point Technology Systems, Inc.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2003