State v. Howell

Citations

• 26 Del. 387

Syllabus

<p>1. Municipal Corporations—Contracts—Conformity to Bids.</p> <p>Where the advertisement for bids for a city garbage contract required each bidder to submit a cut of the particular kind of cart he would use, which relator, who was awarded the contract, did, the mayor will not be compelled by mandamus to sign a contract for the work which does not refer to the type of cart to be used; the contract being different from the bid and the award.</p> <p>2. Municipal Corporations—Contracts of Board of Health.</p> <p>If one who bid for the work of hauling city garbage, and was awarded the work by a former board of health, was entitled to have a written contract for the work executed, the contract should be drawn by the present board of health, and not that which made the award, the terms of office of whose members have expired.</p> <p>3. Municipal Corporations—Contracts—Acceptance of Bid.</p> <p>In order to have a valid contract with a city to remove garbage, etc., the bid for the work must be accepted by it, and the contract awarded pursuant to the bid.</p> <p>4. Municipal Corporations — Garbage Contracts—Necessity of Writing.</p> <p>Where an ordinance provided that all proposals for the performance of the work of removing garbage should be accompanied by a certified check on a city bank for $200 for each district as a guarantee for the proper execution of the work, which amount was to be forefeited if the successful bidder failed to execute the contract and give bond, it was contemplated that a contract for the collection and removal of garbage should be reduced to writing and signed by the parties, in order to determine the terms of the contract the bond was given to secure.</p>