## Facts

- Robert J. Cheney, a general contractor, held a prime contract to add to and repair a Minneapolis school building and sought a subcontractor for roofing and sheet-metal work.
- Joseph Tyra provided Cheney’s estimator an oral, itemized estimate totaling about $4,025, including a $963 item for work on the new portion of the building.
- Tyra later submitted a written bid after being invited to do so; in preparing it, he inadvertently omitted the $963 item.
- There was evidence Cheney knew the written bid contained this omission and knew Tyra believed the written bid matched the earlier oral estimate.
- Cheney proceeded to direct Tyra to perform the work without disclosing the pricing discrepancy.
- Tyra performed and supplied materials believing he would be paid consistent with the oral estimate; Cheney insisted payment was limited to the lower written amount and denied receiving the oral bid.
- Tyra sued for the reasonable value of labor and materials furnished, less payments already received; Cheney pleaded an express contract based on the written bid and tendered judgment for $27 as the unpaid balance under that theory.

## Issues

1. Whether an enforceable contract on the mistaken written bid price is formed when the offeree accepts the bid knowing of the bidder’s material pricing mistake and the bidder’s ignorance of it.
2. If no such contract is formed, whether the performing bidder may recover the reasonable value of labor and materials in quantum meruit.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Cheney’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial.
- The court held that an offeree cannot create a binding contract by accepting a written bid when he knows the bid contains a material price mistake and knows the bidder is unaware of the mistake.
- The court upheld the jury’s award allowing Tyra to recover the reasonable value of his performance (less payments), rather than limiting recovery to the balance due under the mistaken written price.

## Legal Principles

- Acceptance does not form a contract where the offeree knows a written bid contains a material mistake and knows the bidder is unaware of the error; there is no assent to the same terms.
- When the offeree, knowing of the bidder’s mistake, directs performance without disclosure, the bidder who performs in ignorance may recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of labor and materials furnished.
- The remedy in such circumstances is restitutionary recovery based on reasonable value, not enforcement of either the mistaken written price or the earlier oral estimate as a fixed contract price.

## Conclusion

Because Cheney knowingly took advantage of Tyra’s material pricing omission in the written bid while Tyra performed under a mistaken understanding, the court refused to enforce the mistaken written price and allowed recovery of the reasonable value of Tyra’s work, affirming the verdict and denial of post-trial relief.


Tyra v. Cheney, 129 Minn. 428, 152 N.W. 835 (Minn. 1915)