Gibson & Odom Electric Company, Inc. v. R. F. Ball Construction Company, Inc., and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

368 F.2d 182, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4540
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 28, 1966
Docket22824_1
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 368 F.2d 182 (Gibson & Odom Electric Company, Inc. v. R. F. Ball Construction Company, Inc., and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gibson & Odom Electric Company, Inc. v. R. F. Ball Construction Company, Inc., and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 368 F.2d 182, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4540 (5th Cir. 1966).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellee, R. F. Ball Construction Company, Inc., was the prime contractor of a construction job in New Orleans, Louisiana. The appellant, Gibson & Odom Electric Company, Inc., claimed it was the low bidder for an electrical subcontract and that it had entered into a verbal agreement with Ball to perform the electrical work. Before the documents were in satisfactory form, Ball notified Gibson & Odom that it had withdrawn from the proposed subcontract. Ball gave the electrical subcontract to another. Gibson & Odom sues for breach of contract and says that under instructions from Ball it had incurred obligations and expenses. It sought recovery both on the theory of a *183 breach of contract and on quantum meruit. The district court made findings and conclusions, deciding that no binding contract had been made and Gibson & Odom was not entitled to a recovery of damages or for anticipated profits. The district court gave Gibson a judgment of $3,496.17 as reimbursement for expenditures made in doing preliminary work. The question in the district court was primarily one of fact. The question here is whether the findings of the district court are clearly erroneous. We decide that they are not. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Casielles v. Taylor Rolls Royce, Inc.
645 F.2d 498 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
Bank of South v. Fort Lauderdale Technical College, Inc.
301 F. Supp. 260 (E.D. Louisiana, 1969)
Megarry Brothers, Inc. v. United States
404 F.2d 479 (Eighth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
368 F.2d 182, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-odom-electric-company-inc-v-r-f-ball-construction-company-ca5-1966.