Wil-Fred, Inc. v. Metropolitan Sanitary District Illinois Appellate Court 1978 1) Facts a) The Plaintiff, Wil-Fred’s, Inc. (Plaintiff), submitted a bid and a $100,000 security deposit in response to the Defendant, Metropolitan Sanitary District’s (Defendant), advertisement seeking contractors for the rehabilitation of sand drying beds at its plant. The estimated cost of the work, as stated in the advertisement was $1,257,000.00. Plaintiff submitted the low bid of $882,600. Plaintiff’s bid included the bid of a subcontractor with whom Plaintiff had worked several times and whose work Plaintiff found to be performed skillfully. The proposal form that Defendant sent to Plaintiff contained a clause stating that the proposal was not be withdrawn or cancelled or the Defendant will retain the security deposit. Plaintiff then learned that its subcontractor made an error in submitting its bid to Plaintiff and that performing the contract at that price would force the subcontractor into bankruptcy. With this information, Plaintiff attempted to withdraw its bid. Defendant rejected Plaintiff’s withdrawal. 2) History a) Plaintiff then filed for a preliminary injunction and rescission of the contract. b) The trial granted rescission and ordered the return of the deposit c) Sanitary district appeals 3) Issue a) Can Wil-Fred obtain rescission based on the unilateral mistake i) The elements for rescission are: that the mistake relate to a material feature of the contract; that it occurred notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable care; that is of such grave consequence that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable; and that the other party can be placed in the statu quo ii) The testimony of Ciaglo’s mistake was a material feature and since the defense did not cross examine, his testimony stands contradicted iii) Wil-Fred produced evidence along with testimony to support the error and the amount it would damage the plaintiff iv) Sanitary district was informed of the mistake and still accepted even though it would have not harmed them at all to allow withdraw v) Futhurmore since the bid was so low, Sanitary should have been on notice it was a mistake since the bid was over 200,000 cheaper than the next bid in line. Wil-Fred used an experienced contractor and relied on his quotation and did their due diligence to ensure a proper bid. 4) Judgment: Affirmed