In plaintiff's suit against the city of Boston over a dispute over payment for road salt that the company supplied during the winter of 2004-2005, judgment for the city is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined as a matter of law that no new contract was created between the city and plaintiff that would satisfy the requirements of Chapter 30B or the City Charter, and that such failure was not excused by the emergency provisions of chapter 30B; and 2) the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to relief under a theory of equitable estoppel as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court has consistently refused to allow equitable recovery on a contract that does not comply with the material requirements of public bidding laws.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided December 21, 2009
Opinion by Gibson, Circuit Judge
For Appellee: Adam Cederbaum, William F. Sinnott, Corporation Counsel, and Scott C. Holmes, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Boston Law Department