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 Associa- tion, 1.
II. Where a contract with the Government 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 & 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., receivers, 142.
VII. A 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- ration, 230.
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- termaster Corps, U. S. Army; formality of execution; failure to fix price; allotment by Food Administrator; breach by Government; measures of damages. Dold Packing Co., 525.
XIV. Damages ascertained and allowed for breach of con- tract by the Government in failure to deliver manure collected at Camp Shelby, Miss. Bradley, 551.
XV. Where a contract has been breached and a loss thereby sustained, the degree of proof required as to the amount of damages is that of reasonable accuracy. Id. XVI. Under a contract for coal the Government could take a greater or less quantity, not to exceed 50 per cent, than the estimated amount, according to the actual requirements of the service, the coal to be delivered "in such quantities at such times as the Government may direct." The Government called for and there was delivered to it approximately 17 per cent only of the estimated amount, but during the contract period the Government did not at any time indicate that it would take less than the amount estimated. Held, that the Government, unless its actual requirements were less, was obligated to take the estimated quantity. In the calculation of damages the contractor is to be allowed the excess of the price named over the market price at time of expiration of contract, on the difference between the quantity delivered and the quan- tity estimated. Johnstown Coal & Coke Co., 616.
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., 627.
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. COUNTERCLAIMS.
See Indians, II.
DAMAGES.
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 Co., 333.
See also Charter Party; Contracts, III, V, VI, IX, XI, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XX.
DE FACTO OFFICER.
See Pay, VIII.
DELAYS.
See Contracts, IV, V, VIII, XI, XIX. DENT ACT.
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- tion, III.
DEPENDENTS.
See Pay, III, IX, X, XI.
EMINENT DOMAIN.
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-
« AnteriorContinuar » |