Legal Opinion · Dissent

Paul Wholesale, B.V./HOLS Trading, GmbH, J.V. v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1995No. S-6658Published

1DissentCompton, Justice

In my view the three reasons proffered by DOT & PF for cancelling the bid solicitation are not supported by the record. I would therefore hold that there was no reasonable basis for DOT & PF’s decision to cancel the bid solicitation.

I

PW complains that the bid solicitation was ambiguous in that “duty free and/or general merchandise retail business” was susceptible to different meanings. First, I do not agree with the court’s conclusion that this clause is ambiguous. The fact that different parties placed different interpretations on the clause seems hardly conclusive that the clause is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Village Inn Apartments v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Utah · 1990
  2. King v. Alaska State Housing AuthorityAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Dick Fischer Development No. 2, Inc. v. Department of AdministrationAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
  4. McBirney & Associates v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Kila, Inc. v. State, Department of AdministrationAlaska Supreme Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API