Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A general contractor relied on a subcontractor’s bid that explicitly stated it was not a firm offer. When the subcontractor raised its price, the court held that no contract was formed and reliance was unreasonable due to the clear disclaimer, which trumped industry custom.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that unambiguous express terms disclaiming contractual intent in a bid will override industry custom, precluding the formation of a contract or a successful claim of promissory estoppel based on reliance on that bid.
Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Fletcher-Harlee Corp. (Fletcher-Harlee), a general contractor, solicited bids from subcontractors for a construction project. The solicitation specified that bids must be firm offers, held open for 60 days. In response, Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc. (Pote) submitted a price quotation for the concrete work. However, Pote’s one-page submission included a paragraph with clear, express language stating that the quotation was for informational purposes only, did not constitute a “firm offer,” should not be relied upon, and that Pote would not be held liable for its terms. Despite this explicit disclaimer, Fletcher-Harlee, noting that Pote’s was the lowest price, used the quotation to calculate its own master bid for the project. After Fletcher-Harlee was awarded the general contract, it attempted to formalize an agreement with Pote. Pote then submitted a higher price. Fletcher-Harlee contracted with a different subcontractor for over $200,000 more than Pote’s original quote and subsequently sued Pote for breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a general contractor’s reliance on a subcontractor’s price quotation form the basis for a breach of contract or promissory estoppel claim when the quotation explicitly and unambiguously states that it is not a firm offer and should not be relied upon?
No. The court affirmed the dismissal of Fletcher-Harlee’s claims. No contract was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can a general contractor’s reliance on a subcontractor’s price quotation form the basis for a breach of contract or promissory estoppel claim when the quotation explicitly and unambiguously states that it is not a firm offer and should not be relied upon?
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong precedent that courts will enforce clear Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris n
Legal Rule
Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, express terms of an agreement are Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis prioritized the plain language of the parties' communications over Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliq
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Express contract language, such as a disclaimer, overrides conflicting industry customs