Legal Opinion

Warnock & Zahrndt, Inc. v. Wray

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 14, 1928PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.

The only claim made by the petitioner, Warnock & Zahrndt, Inc., and the plaintiff, Henry Warnock, is that the bid of Bareham & McFarland, Inc., is informal and should be rejected and that the contract should be awarded to Warnock & Zahrndt, Inc. There is no claim that all of the bids should be rejected and a new bidding directed. There is only a difference of $357 between the two bids involved, on a contract aggregating about $265,000.

There is no such informality as would require the rejection of the Bareham & McFarland bid. The board is required to let the *883contract to the “ lowest…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gage v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
  2. McCord v. LauterbachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  3. Boyle v. GrantNew York Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. George A. Fuller Co. v. ElderkinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API