## Facts

- A general contractor solicited bids for reinforcing steel work on a public wastewater treatment plant project.
- A steel subcontractor submitted a written bid of $139,511 and allegedly reaffirmed it by a verbal promise.
- The general contractor used the subcontractor’s bid to prepare and submit its prime bid, and the subcontractor knew or should have known its bid would be relied upon.
- The project owner accepted the prime bid.
- After award, the subcontractor refused to perform at the quoted price, asserting its bid was the product of an honest calculation mistake and alleging the general contractor knew of the error but did not allow revision as was customary in the industry.
- The general contractor allegedly incurred $242,171 to obtain/perform the reinforcing steel work and sought $102,660 in damages based on reliance.
- The action sought money damages but was pleaded solely on promissory estoppel; a negligence theory was dismissed at trial.
- The subcontractor demanded a jury trial; the court denied a jury as of right, used an advisory jury on reliance, and entered judgment for $102,660 after the advisory verdict favored the general contractor.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial when the plaintiff seeks money damages on a claim based entirely on promissory estoppel.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the general contractor.
- The court held there is no constitutional jury-trial right where the claim is based entirely on promissory estoppel because the gist of the action is equitable.
- The court approved the trial court’s use of an advisory jury, while confirming that ultimate fact-finding remains with the judge in equitable actions.

## Legal Principles

- The California constitutional jury-trial right turns on the historical law–equity distinction and depends on the “gist of the action,” not merely the form of the remedy requested.
- Promissory estoppel is fundamentally equitable; seeking or awarding money damages does not, by itself, convert an equitable action into a legal one for jury-trial purposes.
- In equitable cases, a court may empanel an advisory jury to assist on factual questions, but neither party is entitled to a binding jury verdict as a matter of right.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiff’s damages claim rested solely on promissory estoppel, the action was equitable in substance, and the defendant had no constitutional right to a jury trial; the judgment enforcing reliance-based recovery was therefore affirmed.


C & K Eng'g Contractors v. Amber Steel Co., 23 Cal. 3d 1 (Cal. 1978)