The legal issue in the instant question is whether BetterGrass can has any right of suing in case of its omission from the bids of suppliers, and if it has such a right, then against who all can it enforce the same.
It would be useful to outline the basic factual matrix in the instant case. In the instant case, the District and QA choose to go with the turf supplied by TurfGrass without having any proper process of bids whatsoever. Realizing this, BetterGrass went before the District and QA and described themselves as one of the best in the market and conveyed their wishes to be included in the bids for the supplier of this project. However, the District and QA refused and said that only TurfGrass would be hired. Thus, BetterGrass is aggrieved.
It is important to note that no proper process of bidding was followed. Thus, there was no promise on the part of District or QA to hire the lowest bidder. Whether or not their decision of hiring TurfGrass was economically rational or not, they decided to go ahead with it. Since they had not legally bound themselves, they were free to do so.
BetterGrass can’t sue SiteK as the latter had absolutely no say in the matter. SiteK’s contract with the District and QA contained a covenant that the supplier must be TurfGrass only and this condition was non-negotiable. Therefore, SiteK had no choice but to get the turf from TurfGrass.
The legal issue that arises in the instant question is whether any right to sue arises to BestFields in view of the fact that its bid was rejected despite being the lowest bid and if such a right to sue accrues, then who can it sue.
It would be beneficial to lay out the materially relevant facts to this question. BestFields was the lowest bidder in the auction of the tender for a contractor floated by the District and QA. However, BestFields’ bid was rejected as it had been involved in litigations with the District in the past. Also, its track record was poor as some of the projects undertaken by it had run over-budget and over-time.
It is important to understand that when an auction is conducted, it is merely an invitation to offer and not an offer in itself. When the bid is made, it is an offer by the bidder to the party floating the tender, which is then upon the latter to accept. A binding contract is made only when an offer is accepted by the offeree.
In the instant case, when BestFields made the lowest bid, it merely made an offer to the District and QA. However, for whatever reasons, the District and QA didn’t accept BestField’s offer even though it was the best deal in money terms. However, this acceptance is upon them, and BestFields cannot sue them for the same.
QA can therefore argue that it was upto them to accept BestField’s offer as at the time of the auction, no promise was made that only the lowest bid would be accepted.
The legal issue in the instant question is what would be the claims and defenses of SiteK and TurfGrass in a situation where the project was delayed due to litigation and increase of raw material prices.
The brief outline of facts relevant to this question is that the project was delayed due to litigious claims by BestFields and BetterGrass. The project could finally be started after a delay of nearly seven months. By then, however, the prices of the turf has increased and TurfGrass intimated the same to SiteK. SiteK, however, refused to do the project on the increased price.
TurfGrass can argue that the price of turf indicated by it was the price as prevailing in the market currently and reasonably taking into account any risks that the project might get delayed. It was unreasonable to foresee that the project would be delayed by as long as seven months. Further, the delay of the project is the fault of the District & QA as they should have ascertained well in advance the supplier and the contractor and completed any legal claims arising from such a selection. Turf prices are volatile by nature and depend on the market conditions.
SiteK can argue that its agreement with TurfGrass is framed in such a manner that TurfGrass has agreed to bear all the risk associated with increasing of the turf prices, as it was made clear to them that SiteK would not under any circumstance buy the turf from them at a higher price. Further, SiteK can argue that the delay in project is not because of its own default, as it was always ready to commence the project.
The questions of law that arise in the given question are what are the best claims of SiteK and what are the best responses of the District and QA when the terrain of the project site is found unsuitable.
It would be useful to reiterate the facts material to this issue. The true condition of the project site was not depicted on the plan due to which SiteK hit concrete and there was ten feet debris. QA later issued a revised drawing and its lead engineer told SiteK that he would process a change order for extra costs. SiteK worked over time and over budget. However, subsequently, the lead engineer refused to process the changed order.
SiteK can argue that the situation in the instant case was reviewed by a representative of the QA itself and he had agreed to process a change in the order. It was on this representation that SiteK had acted and worked overtime and over-budget. Therefore, it can argue that the District and QA cannot go back on their representation.
On the other hand, the District and QA can argue that it was expressly agreed to in its contract with SiteK that the latter was fully responsible for checking the plan and the construction site. Further, all risks under the contract were to be borne by the latter. Finally, as per the provisions of the agreement, the work order could be changed only before start of the work and not mid-way of the project.
The question of law which arises in the instant case is whether TurfGrass can bring a lawsuit against SiteK for non-payment of its dues, and if it can then under what grounds.
It would be helpful to set out the materially relevant facts in the instant question. As the project started late, although TurfGrass finished its job before time, the overall project finished late by a few days. Due to this, the District and QA imposed Liquidated Damages on SiteK. SiteK, in turn, refused to fully make the payment of its dues to TurfGrass. Hence, TurfGrass is aggrieved.
SiteK may argue that it was expressly agreed in its agreement with TurfGrass that if the District and QA withhold any of the former’s payments then it would be entitled to withhold TurfGrass’ payments. Therefore, it has withheld the money.
TurfGrass may respond to that by arguing that the intention of parties in including such a provision as aforementioned in their contract was to ensure that if TurfGrass is at fault, then SiteK should not suffer and should be able to pass on the burden of the fault to TurfGrass. However, in the instant case, TurfGrass was not at fault, and in fact, it had finished it work earlier than the time it was permissible to take. Therefore, TurfGrass’ money cannot be withheld.
In my opinion, TurfGrass will be able to successfully sue SiteK for withholding its payments.
In the given question, the question of law that arises for our consideration is whether any of the parties in this agreement can be held liable for the injury caused to the alumni and can the latter claim any compensation.
The materially relevant facts are briefly set out as follows. On the day of the inauguration of the stadium, the chief guest was injured as the turf gave away. It is unclear as to whose fault it was in the same. It is submitted that this would determine who would be liable.
The District & QA have absolved themselves of all liability in the instant case under their agreement with the contractor SiteK. However they are still the owner of the premises and thus the primary liability must fall on them. However, they are free to file a lawsuit to get indemnified from the contractor or the turf supplier as the case may be.
If it can be shown that there was no problem with the turf per se but a problem with its implementation or construction, then SiteK, the contractor shall be held responsible. On the other hand, if it can be shown that there was a material problem with the turf itself due to which the Contractor could not have done much about it, then the turf supplier, i.e. TurfGrass would be held liable. It is also possible, that both the contractor and the turf supplier are held liable. It would really depend upon the cause of the injury and which party was in the closest position to help in avoiding it.