Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc. Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit2007Docket #779136
482 F.3d 247 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7808 2007 WL 1017179

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

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

General Brief
3 min read

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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

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
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 pariatu

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More