Drennan v. Star Paving Co. California Supreme Court 1958 1) Facts a) Plaintiff received a bid from Defendant for paving. b) Based on Defendant’s bid for the paving work, Plaintiff compiled and submitted a bid for the job. c) Plaintiff was awarded the job. d) The day after Plaintiff was awarded the job, Plaintiff stopped by the Defendant’s office. e) Defendant told Plaintiff that a mistake had been made and the paving could not be done for the price indicated in Defendant’s bid. 2) History a) Parties i) Drennan (1) Plaintiff ii) Defendant (1) Star Paving Co, b) Claims i) Plaintiff claimed he relied upon the bid given by the defendant ii) Defendant claims that the offer was revoked before it was accepted c) PH i) Trial court found on substantial evidence that defendant made a definite offer and entered damages for the difference in contract prices 3) Issues a) Did plaintiffs reliance make offer irrevocable i) The offer was constituted a promise to perform on such conditions that were stated expressly. The reliance of the plaintiff of the offer bound him to the defendant’s terms despite the bargain for price. Defendant knew that plaintiff would rely on bid and wanted him to. The offer was not enforceable under contract theory but under promissory estoppel. ii) If the plaintiff knew that the offer was a mistake then he could have revoked it but the requires further evidence and the defendant did not prove that evidence. iii) Section 90 states that the loss resulting form the mistake should fall on the party who caused it. 4) Judgment: Affirmed