21 Wash. App. 832 - Ferrer v. Taft Structurals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This concept [promissory estoppel] applies readily to the unique situation of a subcontractor and a general contractor, as exists here. A subcontractor submits a bid to the general contractor, knowing the general cannot accept the bid as an offer immediately, but must first incorporate it into the general's offer to the prospective employer. The general contractor incorporates the bid in reliance upon the subcontractor to perform as promised, should the prospective employer accept the general's offer. Thus, the elements of predictable and justifiable reliance and change of position are satisfied. Numerous courts and authorities have opined that a subcontractor's bid upon which a general contractor relies should be deemed irrevocable for a reasonable time pursuant to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Drennan v. Star Paving Co., 51 Cal. 2d 409 , 333 P.2d 757 (1958). Thus, had Taft refused to perform following the award of the contract to Halvorson, a breach of contract action based on Taft's original bid would have been appropriate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 46 Wash. App. 314 - Arango Construction Co. v. Success Roofing, Inc.