Southeast Grading, Inc. v. City of Atlanta

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that general contractor's submission of bid documentation listing plaintiff as a \potential\ subcontractor was insufficient to demonstrate that the contractor assented to the terms set forth in the subcontractor's earlier bid
• finding there was nothing in a general contract “tending to show that promises were made by the [property owner] for the benefit of [the subcontractor],” and that, at best, it incidentally benefitted the subcontractor
• minority-owned subcontractor was not the third-party beneficiary of a government construction contract containing a minority participation provision
• for a third party to have standing to enforce a contract under OCGA § 9-2-20, the contract must clearly show it was intended for the third party’s benefit
• fact that contract with city contained minority business participation clause did not make minority subcontractor a third-party beneficiary of contract; there was “nothing in the contract tending to show that promises were made by the city for the benefit of [the plaintiff]”
• communication of acceptance of offer forms bilateral contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).