James Baird Co. v. Gimbel Bros., Inc. United States Court of Appeals 1933 1) Facts a) Plaintiff received a bid from Defendant for supplying linoleum needed in the construction of a public building. b) Plaintiff used Defendant’s bid in computing the bid submitted to the public authorities. c) Defendant realized that a mistake had been made in computing the amount of linoleum needed and that the job would require a greater amount. d) The public authorities accepted Plaintiff’s bid. e) Plaintiff received Defendant’s written confirmation of withdrawal the day after the public authorities accepted Plaintiff’s bid. 2) History a) Parties i) James Baird Co. (1) Plaintiff ii) Gimbel Bros., Inc. (1) Defendant b) Claims i) Plaintiff sued for breach of contract to deliver under a sale of contract ii) Defendant denied contract was made c) Procedural history i) Trial court found in favor of the defendant 3) Issues a) Is the defendant’s mistake excusable from the contract i) It is understood that placing a bid is not an acceptance of that bid. The language stated “if successful in being awarded in this contract” does not imply that a bid will necessarily be accepted. There was no bilateral contract made because the contractor was not required to use the subcontractor and did not accept the offer of the sub contract before revocation. b) Should promissory estoppel apply i) The doctrine could only apply if the plaintiff had already taken actions based upon the bid placed by the defendant. It does not appear through the evidence that this did occur therefore, for now its denied. There is also a lack of consideration to use promissory estoppel. 4) Judgment Affirmed