Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Corbin-Dykes Electric Co. v. Burr
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1, Department B
18 Ariz. App. 101 (1972)
Before bidding on large scale construction projects, general contractors routinely solicit bids from subcontractors to perform specialized work beyond the general contractors expertise.
General contractors then use those subcontractors bids to calculate a project's total costs and formulate their bids. But what happens if after being awarded the project, the general contractor decides to hire a different subcontractor?
The Arizona Court of Appeals considered the legal ramifications of this scenario in Corbin-Dykes Electric Company versus Burr.
General Motors Corporation or GM requested bids from general contractors to construct a new central air conditioning plant near Mesa, Arizona.
Burr and Sons Construction Company, a general contracting company, was interested in submitting a bid. As part of the process of preparing its bid, Burr solicited bids from electrical subcontractors, including Corbin-Dykes Electric Company, which it then incorporated into its bid to GM.
GM ultimately awarded the project to Burr. However, Burr chose not to work with Corbin Dykes, and instead engaged a different electrical subcontractor to complete the project.
Corbin-Dykes filed suit against Burr for breach of contract.
Burr moved for summary judgment, arguing that no contract was formed. Corbin-Dykes opposed Burr's motion, claiming that a contract was formed based on trade usage and custom, which dictated that a subcontractor listed in the general contractors bid would receive the subcontract, if the general contractor was ultimately awarded the project.
The trial court found that no contract had been formed, and granted Burr's motion for summary judgment. Corbin-Dykes appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/corbin-dykes-electric-co-v-burr
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/corbin-dykes-electric-co-v-burr
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Corbin-Dykes Electric Co. v. Burr
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1, Department B
18 Ariz. App. 101 (1972)
Before bidding on large scale construction projects, general contractors routinely solicit bids from subcontractors to perform specialized work beyond the general contractors expertise.
General contractors then use those subcontractors bids to calculate a project's total costs and formulate their bids. But what happens if after being awarded the project, the general contractor decides to hire a different subcontractor?
The Arizona Court of Appeals considered the legal ramifications of this scenario in Corbin-Dykes Electric Company versus Burr.
General Motors Corporation or GM requested bids from general contractors to construct a new central air conditioning plant near Mesa, Arizona.
Burr and Sons Construction Company, a general contracting company, was interested in submitting a bid. As part of the process of preparing its bid, Burr solicited bids from electrical subcontractors, including Corbin-Dykes Electric Company, which it then incorporated into its bid to GM.
GM ultimately awarded the project to Burr. However, Burr chose not to work with Corbin Dykes, and instead engaged a different electrical subcontractor to complete the project.
Corbin-Dykes filed suit against Burr for breach of contract.
Burr moved for summary judgment, arguing that no contract was formed. Corbin-Dykes opposed Burr's motion, claiming that a contract was formed based on trade usage and custom, which dictated that a subcontractor listed in the general contractors bid would receive the subcontract, if the general contractor was ultimately awarded the project.
The trial court found that no contract had been formed, and granted Burr's motion for summary judgment. Corbin-Dykes appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/corbin-dykes-electric-co-v-burr
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/corbin-dykes-electric-co-v-burr
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
