Question: Lobo, Inc. and Carr Construction Co., Inc. used Frost Construction's proposal for the paving work in bidding on a highway construction project. They were awarded the contract and issued a subcontract to Frost incorporating all the terms and conditions in Frost's proposal. Months later, Frost sent a different subcontract to Lobo and Carr that imposed liability on them for consequential damages for delays to Frost's work.
They rejected it and insisted Frost adhere to the original proposal. Frost claimed there was an oral condition precedent that it would be able to start the paving by May 1. Lobo and Carr subcontracted the work to someone else. Frost sued alleging its original proposal was a contract that was modified by a later oral condition. Was it?