HOUSING AUTHORITY OF LAKE ARTHUR v. T. Miller & Sons
120 So.2d 494, 239 La. 966, 1960 La. LEXIS 989 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When calculating a contractual time period of a specified number of days 'after' an event, the day of the event is excluded, and the obligor has until sunset of the final day to perform. Furthermore, an acceptance of a bid conditioned upon a foreseeable and necessary third-party approval is valid once that condition is fulfilled within the bid's irrevocable period.
Facts:
- The Housing Authority of the Town of Lake Arthur invited bids for a public housing project, stipulating that no bid could be withdrawn for 30 days after opening.
- On April 22, 1952, at 2:00 PM, T. Miller & Sons submitted the lowest bid for the project.
- On the same day, the Housing Authority adopted a resolution to accept Miller's bid, but made this acceptance 'subject to the approval of the Public Housing Administration' (PHA), a federal funding agency.
- On May 12, 1952, the PHA provided its approval for the Housing Authority to execute the construction contract with Miller.
- The Housing Authority's director attempted unsuccessfully to notify Miller of the acceptance by phone prior to May 22.
- On May 22, 1952, shortly after 2:00 PM, Miller sent a telegram to the Housing Authority attempting to withdraw its bid.
- Later that afternoon, after learning of the withdrawal telegram via a phone call, the Housing Authority sent its own telegram officially accepting Miller's bid, which Miller received at 3:35 PM on May 22, 1952.
- Miller refused to execute the contract, forcing the Housing Authority to award it to the next lowest bidder at a higher cost.
Procedural Posture:
- The Housing Authority of the Town of Lake Arthur filed suit against T. Miller & Sons in the district court (trial court) seeking damages.
- The trial judge rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, T. Miller & Sons.
- The plaintiff, the Housing Authority of the Town of Lake Arthur, appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contractor effectively withdraw a public works bid when the withdrawal occurs on the 30th day after bids were opened but before the public authority communicates its acceptance, where the authority's acceptance was initially conditioned on a third-party approval that had already been secured within the irrevocable bid period?
Opinions:
Majority - Simon, Justice.
No, the contractor's attempted withdrawal was not effective because the Housing Authority's acceptance was both valid and timely. The condition requiring approval from the Public Housing Administration was a suspensive condition, not a counteroffer, as federal approval was a known and indispensable part of the federally-funded project. Once the PHA gave its approval on May 12, the condition was fulfilled, and the acceptance became binding and enforceable upon communication. Regarding timeliness, the 30-day irrevocable period is calculated by excluding the first day (April 22) and including the entire last day (May 22). Therefore, the Housing Authority had until sunset on May 22 to accept, making its 3:35 PM acceptance valid and Miller's earlier withdrawal attempt on the same day premature and ineffective.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies two important principles in Louisiana public contract law. First, it clarifies that conditioning an acceptance on a foreseeable and necessary approval from a third-party funding agency does not constitute a counteroffer that voids the original bid; it is a suspensive condition that, once met, validates the acceptance. Second, it affirms the standard 'exclude the first day, include the last day' rule for calculating contractual deadlines, providing certainty to public entities that they have the full, specified period to finalize awards. This protects the integrity of the public bidding process by preventing low bidders from withdrawing prematurely after discovering their bid might have been too low.
