Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that when a municipality violates competitive-bidding laws in awarding a competitively bid project, the rejected bidder cannot recover lost profits as damages. The court concluded that injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy because awarding lost profits would impose additional costs on taxpayers and undermine the purposes of competitive bidding. The court reversed the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
Holdings
- A rejected bidder cannot recover lost profits as damages when a municipality violates competitive-bidding laws in awarding a competitively bid project.
- A rejected bidder's remedy for a municipality's violation of competitive-bidding laws is limited to injunctive relief rather than lost-profit damages.
Questions Presented
- Whether a rejected bidder may recover lost profits when a municipality violates competitive-bidding laws in awarding a competitively bid project.
- Whether the availability of injunctive relief, even when timely sought but denied, precludes an award of lost profits in a municipal contract case.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (8)
- Cementech, Inc. v. Fairlawn, Summit App. No. 21344, 2003-Ohio-3145, 2003 WL 21396510(applied)
- Cavanaugh Bldg. Corp. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 8th Dist. No. 75607, 2000 WL 86554 (Jan. 27, 2000)(conflict case)
- Hardrives Paving & Constr., Inc. v. Niles, 99 Ohio App. 3d 243, 650 N.E.2d 482 (1994)(conflict case)
- Danis Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark Cty. Solid Waste Mgt. Dist., 73 Ohio St. 3d 590, 653 N.E.2d 646 (1995)(applied)
- Garono v. State, 37 Ohio St. 3d 171, 524 N.E.2d 496 (1988)(applied)
- Perkins v. Quaker City, 165 Ohio St. 120, 133 N.E.2d 595 (1956)(applied)
- Leaseway Distrib. Ctrs., Inc. v. Dept. of Adm. Servs., 49 Ohio App. 3d 99, 550 N.E.2d 955 (1988)(applied)
- Ranells v. Cleveland, 41 Ohio St. 2d 1, 321 N.E.2d 885 (1975)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…