Cited by

Paul, 255 Minn. 108, 115 , -82 (1959) (stating that competitive bidding requires “rigid adherence to the requirements” and “a violation of the requirements compels a decision which nullifies the contract awarded”); Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48, 53-54 , 93 N.W.

In Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , we also reviewed a municipal ordinance directing the *253 paving of a platted street.

Paul, 223 Minn. 376, 387, 389 , 26 N. W. (2d) 835, 841, 842 ; Ambrozich v. City of Eveleth, 200 Minn. 473, 481 , ; 112 A. L. R. 269; Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48, 53 , , 61 L. R. A. 448.

Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448; Coller v. City of St.

Paul, 223 Minn. 376 , 26 N. W. (2d) 835 ; Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448.

Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448; 4 Dunnell, Dig.

The court was however in some doubt about this for it said in its memorandum that “whether the court has too strictly applied” the rule laid down in Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448, and City of Bemidji v. Ervin, 204 Minn. 90 , , “or not, there is one more point, which in my opinion is the most important question in the case, * * * fatal to defendants’ position,” namely, that the contract violated the St.

The law is settled that municipal authorities must frame such specifications so as to permit “free and full competition.” Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48, 53 , , 61 L. R. A. 448.

Paul, 11 Minn. 110 (174); Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448; Le Tourneau v. Hugo, 90 Minn. 420 , , it is stated: “They [these decisions] apply the well-established doctrine that, when public bidding is required, the proposals and specifications must be so framed as to permit full and free competition, so that all bidders will have

See also Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , 93 N.W.

Schweigert v. Abbott, 122 Minn. 383 , ; Hunstiger v. Kilian, 130 Minn. 474 , ; Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448; Sorknes v. Commrs.

Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 18 , , 61 L. R. A. 118; Bennett v. Beaty, 156 Minn. 293 , .

t is provided, the only question for the court is whether the body “acted arbitrarily and in disregard of the best interests of the public, or upon an erroneous theory of the law, or whether the evidence is practically conclusive against the order.” Brazil v. County of Sibley, 139 Minn. 458 , ; Sartell v. County of Benton, 149 Minn. 233 , ; Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448.

The fact that the attempted change, a modification of the original contract in point of substance, was illegal because not the result of competitive bidding (Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448), cannot be construed as an abandonment of the contract as a matter of law; the only agreement on the subject being an offer to do so by the board on the conditions stated.

605; Laird Norton Co. v. County of Pine, 72 Minn. 409 , ; Fajder v. Village of Aitkin, 87 Minn. 445 , ; Kerr v. City of Waseca, 88 Minn. 191 , ; Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448; Schumacher v. Board of Commrs.

250; Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L.R.A.

Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L.R.A.

Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L.R.A.

Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L.R.A.

See Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448; Le Feber v. West Allis, 119 Wis.

Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , , 61 L. R. A. 448.

Upon the first question above referred to we need only refer to the •case of Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , .

Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , .

But in the two respects mentioned substantial rights of the city are relinquished, and the question presented is whether they constitute a variance, within the meaning of Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48 , .