The plaintiffs-respondents, L-J, Inc. and Eastern Contractors, Inc. (Contractors) are experienced road-building contractors. The two corporations undertook the project here involved as a joint venture; they are owned and/or controlled by Grady Jordan and Barney Jordan, who have built roads for the South Carolina Highway Department for more than 30 years. The defendant-appellant, South Carolina State Highway Department (Department) is a division of State Government charged with the duty of building and maintaining highways.
The contractors successfully bid, in the amount of $3,777,-000.00,1 a job to relocate and construct approximately three and one-half miles of mountainous four-lane roadway on U. S. Highway 25 in Greenville County, ending at the North Carolina line. The road is described as being similar to an interstate highway. The project has been completed and the Contractors have been paid $3,922,000.00, which includes adjustments not in contest.
*418This action was brought by the Contractors to collect $3,106,000.00, plus interest, alleged to be due in addition to the amount already collected. The verdict prayed for includes expenses incurred over and above the bid price, plus $582,000.00 profit and $262,000.00 financing charges incurred. The complaint contains five causes of action based on alleged (1) mutual mistake, (2) false representations, (3) breach of implied warranty, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) denial of due process of law and equal protection of the law as provided in the Constitutions.
The answer amounts to a general denial, setting forth that the Contractors have been fully paid, and includes a counterclaim for rock taken from the project by the Contractors and sold to third parties.
The case was tried before the judge without a jury. He entered'a judgment in favor of the Contractors in the amount of $409,000.00, plus simple interest at the rate of 6% from March 1, 1973. This amount represented compensation for the excavation and removal of 524,000 cubic yards of solid rock, at the rate of 78‡ per cubic yard. The Department has appealed.
On August 26, 1968, the Department advertised the project for bids to be opened on September 17, 1968. The Contractors requested and received bid material, which included detailed cross-sections, boring scroll, and standard specifications of the Department. When the bids were opened on September 17, 1968, the Contractors, were discovered to be the low bidder by approximately $800,000.00. They were disturbed by the fact that their bid was so much lower than the next lowest bid, and proceeded to discuss the matter with S. N. Pearman, the Chief Highway Commissioner, with it in view ,to forfeit their bidder’s bond in the amount of approximately $180,000.00. They decided against this procedure because of the strained relationship it might create with the Department, with which these contractors did considerable business.
*419Being still reluctant to sign the contract, the Contractors, on September 18, 1968, employed Wilbur Smith and Associates, a consulting engineering firm, and requested that an estimate be made of the quantity of rock required to be removed in the construction of the project.
The contract called for the removal of some 8 million cubic yards of unclassified material. Unclassified material or excavation is adequately defined as anything that lies on or under the ground within the geographical limits defined by the contract, whether it is sand, dirt, earth, rock, boulders, or layers of granite gneiss. The removal of rock is far more expensive than removal of dirt, clay, sand, etc., which is usually referred to as common excavation. The Contractors had bid on the basis of their own estimation that 547,000 cubic yards of the unclassified material was rock and that the remainder was common excavation. The Contractors had figured their bid on the basis of $1.12 per cubic yard for the removal of rock, and 26‡ per cubic yard for the removal of common excavation. Fear that there might be more rock than estimated brought about the Contractors’ dilemma. On September 30, 1968, Wilbur Smith and Associates, by letter addressed to the Contractors, estimated that 682,000 cubic yards of rock would have to be removed. On October 10, 1968, the parties formally executed the contract and thereafter the Contractors entered upon the job and completed the project.
It developed that there was considerably more rock than had been estimated by the Contractors or Wilbur Smith and Associates. The Contractors contend that there were approximately 2,800,000 cubic yards of solid rock, but the judge rejected this figure, holding that it was . . . “based purely on an estimate and is entirely too conjectural and speculative on which to base an award of damages for the [Contractors].”
The gist of the lower court ruling is that the Department should pay for the removal of 524,000 cubic yards of solid rock not anticipated by the Contractors.
*420An understanding of the contract, out of which the controversy arises, is necessary to a discussion of the issue.
The proposal inviting bids stipulates that the Contractors have made an examination . . . “of the Specifications and Contract Form, including the Special Provisions contained herein, also of the Plans, and of the site of the work, and propose to furnish all necessary machinery, equipment, tools, labor and other means of construction, and to furnish all materials specified, in the manner and at the time prescribed, and understand that the quantities of work shown herein are approximately only and are subject to increase or decrease, and further understand that all quantities of work, whether increased or decreased, are to be performed at the following unit prices, except in cases where these Specifications provide for payment under a Supplemental Agreement or on a Force Account basis:....” (Emphasis added.)
The proposal form then proceeds to set forth a “Schedule of Prices” indicating (1) the approximate quantities or work and/or services required by the Department, (2) item with unit price, (3) unit price paid in dollars and cents, and (4) amount bid in dollars and cents; (2), (3) and (4) are filled in by the bidder. There are 61 Schedules of Prices. The largest Schedule of Prices and the one which brings about the controversy for the court, is one which calls for the removal of approximately 8,067,924 “cubic yards of unclassified excavation.” The unit price bid was 34^ per cubic yard, for a total of $1,743,094.16.
The proposal further stipulates that the successful bidder shall ... “do all Extra Work which may be required to complete the work contemplated, at unit prices or lump sums, to be agreed upon in writing prior to starting such extra work, or if such prices or sums cannot be agreed upon, to perform such work on a Force Account basis, as provided for in the Specifications.”
*421The Department’s Standard Specifications, which are a part of the contract, read in relevant parts as follows:
“1.13 Contract. . . . The contract shall include the proposal, contract form and contract bond, these specifications, supplemental specifications, special provisions, general and detailed plans, also any written change orders, supplemental agreements and force account work orders that are required to complete the construction of the work in an acceptable manner, including authorized extensions thereof, all of which constitutes one instrument.
2.04 Interpretation of Quantities. The quantities listed in the proposal form are approximate only and are prepared for the comparison of bids. Payment to the Contractor will be made only for the actual quantities or work performed or materials furnished in accordance with the contract, and it is understood that the quantities listed in the proposal form of work to be done and materials to be furnished may each be increased, diminished or omitted, as hereinafter provided, without in any way invalidating the prices bid.
2.05 Examination of Plans, Specifications, Special Provisions and Site of Work. The bidder is required to examine carefully the site of the proposed work, the proposal, plans, specifications, special provisions and contract forms before submitting a proposal. It is mutually agreed that submission of a bid shall be considered prima facie evidence that the bidder has made such examination and satisfied himself as to .the conditions to be encountered, as to the character, quality and quantities of work to be performed and materials to be furnished and as to the requirements of the contract.
4.03 Alterations of Plans or Character of Work. The Engineer shall have the right to make such alterations in the plans or character of the work as may be necessary or desirable during the progress of the work to complete satisfac*422torily the intended construction. Such alterations shall not be considered as a waiver of any conditions of the contract nor invalidate any of the provisions thereof.
The right is reserved to increase or decrease any or all of the items in the list of approximate quantities shown in the proposal form. The total amount of such increase or decrease, whether it applies to one or several items, shall not exceed in value twenty (20%) percent of the total contract amount, except that variations in the items of solid rock excavation or bridge foundation work shall not be considered in determining increases or decreases under this provision, it being understood that quantities of these items cannot be determined accurately before the work is done. . . . [The contract did not include an ‘Item of Solid Rock Excavation.’]
5.02 Plans and Working Drawings. Plans, consisting of general drawings and showing such details as are necessary to give a comprehensive idea of the construction contemplated, will be furnished by the Department. Road plans will show the alignment, profile, grades, and typical cross-sections. . . .
The information contained upon the plans regarding the results obtained from test piles and borings is a record of the conditions revealed by field work and shows conditions that were encountered at the place where the test piles were driven or the borings made, as nearly as those conditions could be interpreted by the Engineer observing the operations. The Contractor is not bound to accept or rely on these data but shall interpret them in the light of his own experience, and he should make such additional borings and investigations, including test piles, as he may desire in order to determine or satisfy himself concerning the conditions affecting lengths of piles or governing or entering into the construction of the foundations.
*4239.03 Payment and Compensation for Altered Quantities. When alterations in plans or quantities of work as herein provided for are ordered and performed, and when such alterations result in increase or decrease of the quantities of work, the Contractor shall accept payment in full at the contract unit prices for the actual quantities of work done (except in cases where a supplemental agreement is executed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.03) ; and allowance will not be made for anticipated profits. [Emphasis added]
13A2 Classification ....
(b) Unclassified Excavation. This classification shall consist of roadway and drainage excavation performed under this section regardless of the materials encountered or the manner in which they may be removed, and shall include:
1. Stripping. This work shall consist of excavating, removing and disposing of all unsuitable material from the ground surface of borrow and material pits, or soft, spongy, unstable, and other unsuitable material from the ground surface within the roadway.
2. Borrow. This work shall consist of removing and placing of material obtained from borrow pits. Borrow shall be used when sufficient quantities of suitable ematerials are not available from the roádway, ditches, or channels to complete the work.
13F METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
13F1 The quantity of work done under this item shall be measured in cubic yards of Unclassified Excavation, which shall be the material acceptably excavated as herein prescribed, measured in its original position, and determined from cross sections by the method of average end areas. . . . [Emphasis added.]
*42413G BASIS OF PAYMENT
The yardage measured as provided in Sections 13F1 . . . above shall be paid for at the contract unit price per cubic yard for Unclassified Excavation, . . . which price and payment shall constitute full compensation for excavating the material, hauling not over 3,000 feet of materials, the formation and compaction of embankments, disposal of surplus or unsuitable materials, stripping, preparation and compaction of subgrade and shoulders, terracing of borrow pits, removal and resetting of mail boxes, and the furnishing of all equipment, tools, labor and incidentals necessary to complete the work in an acceptable manner, except overhaul as defined in Section 19.”
Special Provisions of the Contract, upon which the Department relies heavily to sustain its position, are as follows:
“This project is to be constructed under the South Carolina State Highway Department’s Standard Specifications for Highway Construction Edition of 1964 and the following Special Provisions:
12. PRE-SPLITTING (CONTROLLED BLASTING FOR FORMING FACES OF SLOPES IN ROCK CUTS) : Pre-splitting technique is defined as the establishment of a free surface or shear plane in rock by the controlled usage of explosives and blasting accessories in appropriately aligned and spaced drill holes.
Investigations on this project indicate that rock is prevalent in some cut sections. Faces of cut slopes shall be formed by pre-splitting where, in the opinion of the Engineer, the characteristics of the rock is such that pre-splitting is feasible and where so directed by the Engineer.
Pre-splitting will not be paid for as a separate item. Drilling, explosives, loading of drill holes, blasting and all labor, materials, tools, equipment and incidentals necessary to accomplish the pre-splitting required by the Engineer *425shall be included in the contract unit bid price for Unclassified Excavation. Measurement and payment of unavoidable over-breakage shall be in accordance with Sections 13F1 and 13G of the Standard Specifications. Overbreakage which, in the opinion of the Engineer is avoidable shall not be included in the final measured quantity of Unclassified Excavation.
14. ROCK EXCAVATION: Borings and investigations on this project indicate that rock may be encountered at certain locations and elevations. The data assembled from these investigations and borings are on file in the Central Office and the contractor may review such data for information purposes only. Rock found or encountered at any location or elevation on this project shall not be considered as a waiver of any conditions of the contract nor shall it be a basis for any claims for excavating rock. Payment for all excavation shall be made at the contract unit bid price for Unclassified Excavation except as otherwise stipulated in these Special Provisions.” (Emphasis added.)
The agreement is of a type generally known as a “Unit Price” contract. It is one in which payment of compensation is made at specified unit rates for each of the different kinds of work performed or materials furnished. The bidder submits unit prices for each classification of work and submits a total bid price based on the aggregate of the units of each kind of work in the proposal at the bidder’s unit price for the number of units appearing in the proposal. All compensation due the contractor is determined by the actual units of each type of service rendered or material supplied. The competitive bidding process requires that all bidders have an opportunity to compete for the same project in order that the proposals may be intelligently compared. Frequently in unit price contracts, there are items of work which will be required to be performed but the precise dimensions of the work cannot be determined in advance of the performance. The contracting authority makes an estimate of the *426units of work or material of each type anticipated to be required for completion of the project. Here the contract permits a renegotiation if there is an underage or overage of 20%. The Department estimated 8,067,924 cubic yards of unclassified excavation; there was actually removed 8,592,-856 cubic yards, which is well within the 20% tolerance permitted.
Prior to advertising for bids, representatives of the Department had gone upon the premises and made 33 borings along the center line, which were plotted onto a boring scroll. These borings were made because of the decision of the Department to use a rock excavation technique referred to as “pre-splitting” whenever it was feasible; these were made available to prospective bidders. The boring scroll specifically noted, “These borings are for informational purposes only. See Paragraph No. 14 in Special Provisions.” This paragraph 14 is quoted' above.
Upon receiving the proposal and prior to submitting a bid, Mr. Grady Jordan and other representatives of the Contractors went upon the premises and observed three other prospective bidders making subsurface tests for the purpose of determining how much of the unclassified excavation was rock and how much was common excavation. The normal charge for removing rock would appear to be approximately $1.12 per cubic yard. The cost of removing common excavation would normally be approximately 26‡ per cubic yard, and so it was important to determine, as best a bidder could, the amount of rock as compared with the amount of common excavation to be removed. Even though Mr. Jordan observed other contractors, in preparation to bid, making test borings of their own to get as much information as they could concerning the subsoil and quantity of rock to be encountered, and even though he had with him a drill rig, he made no borings or tests. The Contractors used the 33 borings made by the Department and assumed that rock lay on a level plane. The assumption was entirely erroneous. *427The Jordan party remained on the premises some six or seven days. Three of the Contractors’ employees estimated the amount of rock involved, as follows: Mr. Pollard, 527,000 cubic yards; Mr. Page, 862,000 cubic yards; Mr. Hazel, 515.000 cubic yards. The Contractors’ composite bid was based on an estimation that there would be 547,000 cubic yards of rock for removal.
The order of the lower court recites that:
“. . . [Witnesses for the plaintiffs [Contractors] stated that in their opinion, the plaintiffs blasted and removed between 2,800,000 and 2,900,000 cubic yards of solid rock. This testimony is based purely on an estimate and is entirely too conjectural and speculative on which to base an award of damages for the plaintiffs.
“. . . [T]he contract. . . provided for . . . 8,067,924 cubic yards of unclassified excavation. It is . . . uncontradicted . . . that the plaintiffs removed 8,592,856 cubic yards of [unclassified] material. This is an overrun of 524,932 cubic yards.”
The overage is less than the 20% contemplated by the contract necessary for an adjustment of the unit price. The lower court concluded and found as a fact that all of the overrun of 524,932 cubic yards of material was solid rock; for this the Contractors have been paid at the rate of 34^ per cubic yard for unclassified excavation as specified in the contract. The lower court held that the Contractors were entitled to an additional 784 per cubic yard, this being the difference between 344 and $1.12. Judgment was ordered for $409,000.00, which was arrived at by multiplying 784 by 524,932.
This was the extent of the award. It was made on the first and third causes of action, which alleged (1) mutual mistake and (3) breach of implied warranty. The other three causes of action were rejected by the lower court. The *428judge held that the Contractors had failed to establish damages by the required degree of proof. He said:
“I find as a fact from this testimony that the plaintiffs’ internal financial records are not reliable. These records are not trustworthy and are totally lacking in credibility. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ financial records as prepared and kept at the plaintiffs’ Central Office would not be a proper basis on which to measure the plaintiffs’ losses from the construction of this highway in Greenville County under the plaintiffs’ contract with the defendant. The plaintiffs bear the burden of proof on the question of their damages. The plaintiffs do not have to prove their damages to a mathematical certainty, but the plaintiffs do have to prove their damages to a sufficiently reasonable certainty so that the fact finder can determine what amount is fair, just and equitable.”
The lower court held that the Contractors had failed to prove their second cause of action based on false representations, their fourth cause of action based on unjust enrichment, and their fifth cause of action based on denial of due process of law and equal protection of the law as provided in the Constitutions. It also held that the Department had failed to prove its counterclaim. There is no appeal from any of these rulings.
The appeal contests the correctness of the lower court in finding that the Contractors are entitled to' judgment based on their first cause of action, alleging mutual mistake, and their third cause of action, alleging breach of implied warranty. The issues for determination on this appeal are accordingly narrowed.
We think that the disposition of the case hinges upon the first three questions, all of which are related, as set forth in the Department’s brief. These involve several exceptions, but the questions are appropriately phrased as follows:
“1. Did the lower court err in holding that, under the terms of the contract, the Department is obligated to pay *429the contractor for overruns in solid rock excavation at One and 12/100 ($1.12) dollars per cubic yard?
2. Did the lower court err in finding as a fact that the contractor and the Department were mutually mistaken as to the amount of solid rock that had to be excavated and removed from the project limits by the terms of the contract?
3. Did the lower court err in holding that the Department breached an implied warranty of subsurface conditions by furnishing to the contractor certain boring data upon which the contractor had a right to rely in making its bid on the project?
We first answer the question, “Does the evidence support a finding of mutual mistake so as to entitle the parties to rescind the contract?”
“The formation of a binding contract may be affected by a mistake. Thus, a contract may be avoided on the ground of mutual mistake of fact where the mistake is common to both parties and by reason of it each has done what neither intended.” 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 143 (1964).
“The rule supported by the authorities is that if, in the expression of the intention of one of the parties to an alleged contract, there is error, and that error is unknown to, and unsuspected by, the other party, that which was so expressed by the one party and agreed to by the other is a valid and binding contract, which the party not in error may enforce. In other words, a party to a contract cannot avoid it on the ground that he made a mistake where there has been no misrepresentation, there is no ambiguity in the terms of the contract, and the other contractor has no notice of such mistake and acts in perfect good faith. A unilateral error, it has been said, does not avoid a contract. . . .” 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 146 (1964).
The lower court has correctly found that the Department made no false representations. The gist of the court’s holding is that the Contractors and the De*430partment made a mutual mistake as to the amount of solid rock which would have to be removed, and that the 33 bor-ings amounted to warranties. Some contracts provide for the removal of classified excavation. In such a case a separate unit price would be bid as to common excavation on the one hand, and rock on the other. As indicated hereinabove, apparently the cost of removing rock is approximately $1.12 per cubic yard, while the cost of removing dirt, etc., is approximately 26‡ per cubic yard. The bid of 34(i per cubic yard was a balance bid based on the judgment of the Contractors. The Department made no estimate of the amount of rock to be excavated; it did make an estimate as to the amount of unclassified excavation which would have to be removed. The estimate was rather accurate because the amount of unclassified excavation was well within the 20% tolerance referred to in the contract. The Contractors have been paid for the overage of unclassified excavation — the same being 524,932 cubic yards.
The Contractors attempt to sustain the order of the lower court by asserting that the judge rescinded the contract. The Department argues that -the contract was not rescinded because the judge concluded that the Department should be “liable to the plaintiffs [Contractors], under the terms of the agreement between the parties, for excavation of 524,932 cubic yards of solid rock . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Normally, the rescission of a contract must be accompanied by an offer to return the consideration paid, and normally the damages are awarded on a quantum meruit basis. Under the ruling, as quoted above, that the measure of damages had not been sufficiently proved, an award on the basis of quantum meruit would, of course, be an impossibility. A rescission of the contract was not specifically prayed for in the complaint, and the judge has not specifically set it aside. At the same time, the court has held that the cause of action for “mutual mistake” had been proved. Inasmuch as we hold that there was no mutual *431mistake and the contract should not be rescinded, we need not technically interpret the lower court order.
The contract did not speak in terms of “rock excavation” and in terms of “common excavation.” It did speak in terms of “unclassified excavation,” which included both. The Department and the Contractors appreciated the fact that an estimate of the amount of rock excavation and the amount of common excavation was necessary prior to bidding. It was the responsibility of all bidders to make these estimates. The Department never knew, and never pretended to know, the amount of rock which had to be removed. The Contractors never knew and failed to make tests in an effort to find out. It is apparent that other bidders made their own subsoil tests and, even though they used the 33 borings which were given them for informational purposes only, they did not rely solely upon them. It cannot be seriously argued that these borings alone are a sufficient basis for estimating the amount of rock beneath the surface.
The mistake was not mutual. It was made, not by the Department, but by three of the Contractors’ employees and Wilbur Smith and Associates, all of whom underestimated the amount of rock. The Department had no reason to estimate the amount of rock because it was an “unclassified excavation” contract. It did have reason to estimate the amount of unclassified excavation, which it did with reasonable accuracy. On the other hand, it was imperative that the Contractors estimate the amount of rock and estimate the amount of common excavation in order to arrive at an intelligent, balanced bid. The Contractors simply failed to make sufficient tests and investigations. Those who did make their own tests bid at least $800,000.00 more than the Contractors.
*432Grady Jordan, general manager of the joint venture, testified as follows:
“Q. . . . Well, is there any place that says in words on these bid documents, how much rock the Highway Department estimates is in this project?
“A. No.”
Barney Jordan, President of L-J, Inc., testified:
“Q. Mr. Jordan, how much did the Department represent to contractors was the amount of total unclassified excavation?
A. How much did the Highway Department represent to the contractors?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. They represented 8 million 26 or whatever you just read.
Q. All right, the figure we just talked about a moment ago?
A. That’s right.
Q. How many cubic yards of the unclassified excavation did the Department represent to contractors was soil on earth type material?
A. I don’t think the Highway Department represented any amount to be soil.
Q. All right, sir.
A. Because it was unclassified.
Q. All right, and they didn’t represent any amount of cubic yardage as being rock?
A. Not to me they didn’t.
Q. All right, sir. They made no such representations ?
A. Not to me.
Q. And you know for a fact that different contractors that bid on this job estimated different quantities of rock excavation, using their own methods?
A. You are more than likely correct, yes, sir.
Q. Your own people made different estimates?
A. That is correct.
*433Q. And the Department only represented the total amount of unclassified excavation?
A. Correct.
Q. The composition of the unclassified excavation was an unknown factor, wasn’t it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the extent of the rock was unknown and the extent of the soil was unknown?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And because of the unknown extent of the quantities of rock and the unknown extent of the quantities of soil, that created a risk element, didn’t it, Mr. Jordan?
A. Correct.
Q. So a risk element was involved as to the quantity of rock and the quantity of soil?
A. Yes.”
We now answer the question, “Does the evidence warrant a finding of a breach of implied warranty?” The 33 borings involved no false representations. Each was a true revelation of the content of the earth at the 33 sites. The Contractors’ problem arises because the bor-ings were misinterpreted. It was assumed that rock lay on a level plane and this assumption was simply erroneous.
The Department specifically stated that “These borings are for informational purposes only. See Paragraph No. 14 in Special Provisions.” Paragraph 14 alerted the bidders to the fact that “. . . all excavation shall be made at the contract unit bid price for unclassified excavation except as otherwise stipulated in these special provisions.” The boring scroll and the 33 borings were for informational purposes only, and although the bidders were permitted to use them, there was certainly no express or implied warranty or representation of any material fact upon which the Contractors were entitled to rely.
*434In contracts such as this, there is always an element of chance, an awareness of uncertainty and a conscious ignorance of the future. A bidder estimates its chances and fixes the compensation accordingly. It assumes a risk. It would hardly be argued that the Department would be entitled to rescind the contract and pay less than 34^ per cubic yard if it had developed that there was less rock than was estimated by the contractors. George Tillman Williams, project manager for the Contractors, emphasized this in his testimony:
Q. When you bid on these projects, you take a certain gamble as to the amount of rock that might be there? Is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if you win, you win? Is that right? Suppose you had taken this job and you had found zero yards of hard rock? How much would you owe the Highway Department?
A. We would not owe them anything.
Q. You wouldn’t owe them a penny? You would go away smiling, wouldn’t you?
A. Yes, sir. I sure would.”
Counsel for the Contractors review a multitude of related cases which have some appeal. The Department relies largely on our own case of Blassingame v. Greenville County, 150 S. C. 167, 147 S. E. 848 (1929). The Contractors attempt, but without success, to differentiate that case from the one now before us. In Blassingame, as here, the contract was made in contemplation of uncertainty as to the location and quantity of rock. In Blassingame, the rock quantity was initially estimated, but not properly envisioned or predicted by either party, but the court held that the contractor assumed whatever risk was involved.
The Contractors, having entered into a solemn agreement, must abide by the terms thereof. They took a risk for a consideration, and have no right to call upon the courts to *435protect them against the consequences of erroneous judgment formulated by their own carelessness and failure to make adequate tests and investigation prior to bidding.
Several other questions have been submitted to the court, but our disposition of the first three questions, as indicated hereinabove, makes it unnecessary to treat each separately.
Having concluded that the lower court erred in granting judgment in favor of the Contractors, the order appealed from is
Reversed.
Ness, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ., concur. Lewis, C. J., dissents.Figures throughout this opinion are rounded off for brevity.