White

White v. Berrenda Mesa Water District

Good Law
1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 2223·7 Cal. App. 3d 894·87 Cal. Rptr. 338
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 1970Civ. 1107California498 words

Opinion

Opinion

Coakley, J.

The plaintiffs shall be referred to herein as “White” and “Aetna”; the defendant as “The District.”

This is an action for declaratory relief in which White and Aetna seek rescission of a construction contract and the return of a bid bond posted by Aetna on behalf of White, the low bidder. The District filed a cross-complaint for damages. Following a trial to the court, judgment was entered in favor of The District on the complaint and on the cross-complaint, and against White and Aetna. The District’s damages were fixed at $42,789. There is no substantial conflict in the testimony or in the documentary evidence. The issue on appeal is the court’s interpretation of the evidence and the applicable law.

The controversy arose in this way: The District invited bids on a construction project which was divided into four separate entities for bidding purposes. White was low bidder on one segment of the project, i.e., a regulating reservoir. With his bid, White filed a surety bond by Aetna in the sum of $42,789.

Eight other bids were received for the work on which White was the low bidder. When the bids were opened, they ran from White’s low bid of $427,890 to a high bid of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.