« AnteriorContinuar »
I. In suit to recover from the United States on the basis of
quantum meruit for work performed and labor fur-
nished over and above that required by express con-
tract, want of authority in the Government agent to act
in the premises precludes recovery. Stolts A880cia-
II. Where a contract with the Governinent provided for
delivery of sand f. o. b. barge at wharf, and at the
direction of the Government the contractor delivered
the sand on barge at an adjacent cofferdam, delivery
was in compliance with contract. Arundel Sand de
Gravel Co., 90.
III. Where in a contract with the Government to deliver sand
f. o. b. barge at a private wharf the contractor, under
protest that it was not a safe place to moor a barge,
nevertheless at the direction of the Government tied one
in bad condition at a near-by cofferdam, which was a
reasonably safe place in ordinary weather, and there
left it to be unloaded, the Government could not be
held for anything but reasonable care, which, under
the circumstances, it exercised, and was not liable for
loss due to a sudden and unusual storm. Id.
IV. (1) Where a Government contract provides in writing
that work on the construction of a building shall com-
mence when site is completely cleared ” and be finished
within 10 months after it is begun, evidence that the
Government verbally agreed to clear the site at a defi-
nite date as an inducement to the written contract does
not vary the terms thereof and is admissible to estab-
lish a distinct agreement. (2) Under the circum-
stances recited the Government was obligated by the
written contract to clear the site within a reasonable
time. McCloskey, jr., etc., 105.
V. Where the Government agrees to clear the site for a
building at a fixed time and delays in clearing the same,
the building contractor has the right to perform his
part of the contract and, in the absence of acquiescence,
recover damages for the delay. Id.
VI. Loss of profits constitutes a proper element of damage in
the cancellation of a contract. A contract that was
entered into prior to passage of the act of July 1, 1922,
which authorized the President to cancel the same, is
not affected by the act as to the basis of compensation
for cancellation, and the contractor is entitled to profits
lost by reason of the cancellation. Burns et al.,
VII. contract with a common carrier guaranteeing certain
earnings in return for the maintenance of special pas-
senger service for the benefit of arsenal employees was
within the authority of the commandant for “ the pro-
curement of services," and was not invalid for lack of
benefit to the Government where the service was valu-
able and necessary to the activities of the arsenal.
Wharton & Northern R. R. CO., 205.
VIII. In a contract for the installation of a pumping plant it
was provided that delays caused by acts of the Govern-
ment would be regarded as “unavoidable delays," for
which the contractor might have an extension of time.
Owing to the failure of the Government to furnish a
necessary pump-well structure within the agreed time,
the contractor had to suspend work. Before resuming
work the price of labor increased and a supplemental
contract was executed increasing the contract price to
cover the excess cost. The contract construed, and
held, (1) that the provision in regard to "unavoidable
delays” meant that such delays would be considered
unavoidable on the part of the contractor, (2) that the
failure to deliver the pump-well structure constituted
a breach which furnished the basis for a valid con-
sideration in the supplemental contract of detriment to
the contractor and benefit to the Government, and (3)
that the Government, by entering into and fulfilling the
supplemental contract for increased price, placed upon
the original contract a construction by which it is now
bound. Crook Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 4, dis-
tinguished. Worthington Pump & Machinery Corpo-
IX. For the breach of a contract of sale giving the purchaser
the right to supply a deficiency by procurement in
open market, or otherwise, the amount of damages is
measured by the difference between the contract price
and the market price on the date for delivery or, in
the absence of evidence of market price at that time,
at a reasonable time thereafter. Manowitz, 247.
X. Termination; just compensation. Barrett Co., 293.
XI. Where a construction contract provides for liquidated
damages in case the work is not completed at the date
agreed upon, and delays in the performance of the
contract are mutual, the initial delay being due to
the fault of the Government, the contractor, in the
absence of proof of actual damages, and of facts show-
ing the date, due to the Government's delay, from which
liquidated damages are to run, may recover the full
contract price. Greeley Iron Works, 328.
XII. Plaintiff had numerous contracts with the Navy Depart-
ment, entered into prior to the war, all at fixed prices,
for the construction of submarine torpedo boats. Due
to wage increases by the Shipbuilding Labor Adjust-
ment Board on other work, plaintiff was compelled, in
order to avoid labor troubles and complete the vessels,
to pay like increases on its fixed-price contracts, the
work extending into the period of hostilities, and the
Secretary of the Navy thereupon agreed to pay to
the plaintiff the cost of such wage increases, but, be-
cause there was a question of legal liability therefor,
made no reimbursement. Held, that under the Bliss
case, 275 U. S. 509, there existed a valid contract to
reimburse the contractor the loss sustained. Electric
Boat Co., 333.
XIII. Purchase of packing-house products; contract with Quar-
XVII. Where a contract for dredging requires the “removal and
disposition of all material encountered, except ledge
rock,” and defines ledge rock, stating that it “ shall not
include fragments of rock or boulders capable of being
raised by the dredge in one piece," removal by the dredge
of pieces of ledge rock incidental to the main operation
of dredging other material does not entitle the con-
tractor to extra compensation. Maryland Dredging Co.,
XVIII. Where in a contract for Army dredging it is provided
that “the findings of the contracting officer, approved
by the Chief of Engineers, shall be accepted by the
parties hereto as final," the action of the Comptroller
General in refusing payment of items found due by
such findings, there being no question of good faith
involved, was unauthorized. Id.
XIX. A provision in a contract that where any delays in the
prosecution or completion of the work are caused by
the Government the contractor may have an extension
of time if claim therefor is presented within a specified
time, applies to the work called for by the original con-
tract, and such claim in the absence of other agreement
is not necessary as to work subsequently required.
Plack et al., 641,
XX. Where the original contract makes no provision for a
change in specifications or additions to the amount of
work, the acceptance of orders for such changes or
additions together with the price named therein con-
stitutes a new and supplemental contract, and furnishes
the contractor no ground for damages due to the neces-
sity of more time or a different period of the year than
that required by the original contract. Id.
XXI. In a contract with the Veterans' Bureau for remodeling
and alterations it was provided that plaintiff was to
receive certain material to be salvaged from another
building for use under the contract, and plaintiff in
his bid made allowance for the use of said material.
The salvage material, upon being removed by the Gov.
ernment, was damaged and intermingled with other
material, and was not made available to the plaintiff,
who was compelled to replace it with new material at
an increased cost. Held, that plaintiff was entitled to
recover the extra cost by reason of being compelled to
substitute new material. Brundage, 708.
See also Charter Party; Damages; Dent Act; Jurisdiction, II;
Leases; Pay, I; Postal Service, II; Sale of Supplies; Salvage
Services; Settlement Contracts; Statute of Limitations; Taxes,
VII, XVII, XX, XXVI, XXVII, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XL.
See Indians, II.
Damages are not to be denied because they may not be suscep-
tible to indisputable accuracy. The test to be applied is :
Have the sums claimed been calculated upon a reasonable
basis, and under all the circumstances of the case does the
claimed amount reflect the proximate injury? Electric Boat
See also Charter Party; Contracts, III, V, VI, IX, XI, XIII,
XIV, XV, XVI, XX.
DE FACTO OFFICER.
See Pay, VIII.
See Contracts, IV, V, VIII, XI, XIX.
Where upon the representation of traveling supervisors in the
office of the Quartermaster General of the Army, not con-
tracting officers, that they wanted plaintiff's company, whose
business was the tanning of patent leather, to manufacture
heavy leather for Army purposes, and that the Government
would pay for necessary changes in machinery and equip
ment, the company makes such changes and manufactures
and sells to Government contractors leather so manufactured
by it, but does not itself have a formal contract with the
Government and incurs a loss due to the intervention of the
armistice, there can be no recovery under the Dent Act, nor
does a statement made by an Army officer that all of the
Army leather manufactured by the company that was satis-
factory would be taken and used by the manufacturers of
Army shoes constitute a taking or requisition of such leather.
Goetz, trustee, 17.
See Contracts, XVIII; Postal Service, I; Statutory Construc-
See Pay, III, IX, X, XI.
Where property is taken under eminent domain and suit is
brought to recover full compensation, the plaintiff is entitled
as part of such compensation to interest on the value of the
property taken from the time it was taken, applying a par-