Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 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
LAHR Construction Corp. v. J. Kozel & Sons, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
640 N.Y.S. 2d 957, 168 Misc. 2d 759 (1996)
In LAHR Construction versus J. Kozel and Sons, we'll see whether a contractor may be granted relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel when a subcontractor fails to perform work after the subcontractor submitted an oral bid.
LAHR Construction, doing business as LeCesse Construction Company, prepared a bid for a multimillion dollar renovation project at the University of Rochester.
LeCesse was a general contractor, so it requested bids from subcontractors for different parts of the project. Kozel and Sons, a steel product subcontractor, submitted a bid to LeCesse to provide structural steel work for the project.
LeCesse incorporated the rates and figures that it received from Kozel in its final bid. The university then awarded LeCesse the contract to complete the renovation project.
Later, an employee from LeCesse contacted Kozel and informed Kozel that LeCesse was awarded the general contract for the project. LeCesse didn't tell Kozel that Kozel had been awarded the subcontract, and LeCesse attempted to negotiate a new deal for Kozel's services at a better rate.
Kozel informed LeCesse that it wouldn't perform the work.
LeCesse then told Kozel that LeCesse had relied on Kozel's bid for the contract, so it was too late for LeCesse to refuse to perform the work.
LeCesse sent Kozel a letter of intent for its services, but Kozel refused to sign the letter and informed LeCesse again that it wouldn't perform the structural steelwork.
After Kozel refused to perform the work, LeCesse had to hire a different subcontractor for the steelwork at a higher price than Kozel's bid.
LeCesse then sued Kozel to recover the difference between Kozel's bid and the amount LeCesse had to pay the other subcontractor.
Kozel filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/lahr-construction-corp-v-j-kozel-sons-inc
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/lahr-construction-corp-v-j-kozel-sons-inc
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
LAHR Construction Corp. v. J. Kozel & Sons, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
640 N.Y.S. 2d 957, 168 Misc. 2d 759 (1996)
In LAHR Construction versus J. Kozel and Sons, we'll see whether a contractor may be granted relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel when a subcontractor fails to perform work after the subcontractor submitted an oral bid.
LAHR Construction, doing business as LeCesse Construction Company, prepared a bid for a multimillion dollar renovation project at the University of Rochester.
LeCesse was a general contractor, so it requested bids from subcontractors for different parts of the project. Kozel and Sons, a steel product subcontractor, submitted a bid to LeCesse to provide structural steel work for the project.
LeCesse incorporated the rates and figures that it received from Kozel in its final bid. The university then awarded LeCesse the contract to complete the renovation project.
Later, an employee from LeCesse contacted Kozel and informed Kozel that LeCesse was awarded the general contract for the project. LeCesse didn't tell Kozel that Kozel had been awarded the subcontract, and LeCesse attempted to negotiate a new deal for Kozel's services at a better rate.
Kozel informed LeCesse that it wouldn't perform the work.
LeCesse then told Kozel that LeCesse had relied on Kozel's bid for the contract, so it was too late for LeCesse to refuse to perform the work.
LeCesse sent Kozel a letter of intent for its services, but Kozel refused to sign the letter and informed LeCesse again that it wouldn't perform the structural steelwork.
After Kozel refused to perform the work, LeCesse had to hire a different subcontractor for the steelwork at a higher price than Kozel's bid.
LeCesse then sued Kozel to recover the difference between Kozel's bid and the amount LeCesse had to pay the other subcontractor.
Kozel filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/lahr-construction-corp-v-j-kozel-sons-inc
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/lahr-construction-corp-v-j-kozel-sons-inc
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
