Four Nines Gold, Inc. v. 71 Const., Inc.
809 P.2d 236 | Wyoming Supreme Court | 1991
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Four Nines Gold discovered it had made a bidding error and truthfully disclosed this mistake to the project owner before the general contractor 71 Construction could lock in the contract. Four Nines sued for interference with the prospective contract, but Wyoming's Supreme Court ruled against them. The court held that honest, good-faith disclosure of facts—even when it helps you and hurts a competitor—is not illegal interference and cannot be the basis for a lawsuit.
Key Takeaways
- •You can safely disclose truthful information about bidding errors or project facts to an owner without fear of being sued for interference, even if it affects a competitor's contract
- •Good faith and honest statements are protected; the law does not penalize you for protecting your own economic interests through truthful disclosure
- •If a competitor sues you for interference based on truthful statements you made, you have a strong legal defense and can likely get the case dismissed early
Truthful statements, whether solicited or volunteered, are not actionable as intentional interference.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get sued if I tell the owner about a competitor's bidding mistake?
No. If your disclosure is truthful and made in good faith to protect your own interests, it is not illegal interference with contract. Wyoming courts protect honest statements, even when they harm a competitor's deal. You cannot be held liable for truthfully informing an owner about factual errors.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.
Westech Engineering, Inc. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc.
A subcontractor's equipment failed to meet contract specifications; the trial court properly found breach of contract and awarded damages for cover costs under UCC § 2-207 battle of the forms doctrine.