DYNALECTRIC CO., INC. V. CLARK AND SULLIVAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 255 P.3d 286 (2011) CASE BRIEF

DYNALECTRIC CO., INC. V. CLARK AND SULLIVAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

255 P.3d 286 (2011)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Clark (P), general contractor, sued Dynalectric (D), nonperforming subcontractor, for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. D countersued for breach of an implied contract, fraud, and a violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 338.141. D appealed an award of $2,501,615 in damages to P.

FACTS: UMC solicited bids for the Project. P, interested in serving as the general contractor for the Project, sought bids from subcontractors. D submitted a bid to P to perform the electrical work for the Project and repeatedly assured P of the accuracy of its bid. P incorporated D's bid into its bid to UMC for the general contract (Prime Contract). P was the low bidder, and UMC awarded it the Prime Contract. P notified D. D repudiated its obligations to P and refused to negotiate with P. P contracted with three replacement subcontractors to complete the electrical work for the Project. P then sued D in district court under various theories of liability, including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. D countersued for, among other theories, breach of an implied contract, fraud, and violation of NRS 338.141. P got judgment on its promissory estoppel claim. The district court awarded P $2,501,615 in damages, which represents the difference between D's bid ($7,808,983) and the amount P paid the three replacement contractors to complete the work ($10,310,598). D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner