Legal Opinion

Automatic Merchandising Corp. v. Nusbaum

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1973No. 266PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobert W. Hansen, J.

This action and appeal involve what is termed alternative bidding — where the advertisement for bids permits or requires the submission of bids on alternative kinds or qualities of work or materials. The bid-letter reserves the right to select one or the other of the work or materials specified, and need not select the cheaper of the two. The option is reserved to select between the alternatives presented.

Was this an alternative bid?

The trial court held that the bid here involved was an alternative bid, and we concur that it was. The bid re quest called for bids on two types of equipment —…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wester v. BeloteSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
  2. Menzl v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Bechthold v. City of WauwatosaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Mueller v. Eau Claire CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Trapp v. City of NewportCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sandroni v. Waukesha County Board of SupervisorsCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
  2. Glacier State Distribution Services, Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1998
  3. Ericsson GE Mobile Communications, Inc. v. Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1995
  4. Troutman v. FMC Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
  5. San Jose Construction Group, Inc. v. Loudoun County School BoardLoudoun County Circuit Court · 1998

1 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