Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bechtell v. City of Salem

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1961Published

1DissentRossman, J.

Notwithstanding the fact that the City of Salem included in the bonding applications, which it required *12applicants for Bancroft bonding (ORS 223.205 through 223.300) to sign, a provision (1) which is absent from the form of applications for bonding prescribed by ORS 223.215 and (2) which is hostile to the provisions of the Bancroft Bonding Act the majority ignore those important facts and hold that when the property owners signed the applications a “binding contract” was thereby created and that it was governed by the Bancroft Bonding Act. To support their holding the majority cite previous…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parker v. Hood RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Ivanhoe v. City of EnterpriseOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  3. PAGET ET UX v. City of PendletonOregon Supreme Court · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API