CALCULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT.
See Contracts VI.
CHANGES.
See Contracts VII.
CLAIM FOR REFUND.
See Taxes I, II, III, LXVII, LXVIII, LXXI. COMMUNITY PROPERTY.
See Taxes XXXVII. COMPLETION OF WORK.
See Contracts XXVI.
CONSOLIDATED GROUP OF CORPORATIONS.
See Taxes IV.
CONSTITUTIONALITY.
See Taxes XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII.
CONTINUITY OF INVENTION.
See Patents II.
CONTRACTS.
I. Where plans, specifications, and statements are alleged to have led to the belief that the Government would construct a railroad track, adjacent to proposed loca- tion of hangars to be built by plaintiff, it is held that the evidence fails to show that any contract or agreement was made by the Government to construct such a railroad track, and in the absence of any agreement there can be no recovery for cost and expense incurred by reason of the defendant having failed to construct such railway. Sobel, 149.
II. Where soil conditions, unknown when the contract was made, rendered it necessary to change the character of the foundations, which delayed the work, it is held that this was not such a change as was contemplated by the contract, and plaintiff is entitled to recover for incidental costs and damages resulting from the delay so occasioned, although the contract price was in- creased to cover the increased cost of construction of the foundations and the time limit for completion of the contract was extended. Id.
III. Where the contract made provisions for the erection of an additional hangar, at the option of the defendant, it is held that the plaintiff cannot recover for the delay caused by the erection of such additional hangar. Id. IV. Where contract called for "hydrostatic" test of the steam heating system, and it was provided that the defendant should furnish the steam for such test, but no steam was in fact furnished, and a test was made with com- pressed air, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover for cost of repairing the system when defects developed. Id.
V. Where contract for construction of a lock in the Kanawha River called for a test of certain valves to ascertain if said valves would lower and raise the gates of the lock, without specifying the character of such test, and where plaintiff successfully made a mechanical test, and was then required, at extra expense, to make an oil test, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover. General Contracting Corporation, 214.
VI. Where contract provided that steel castings should be within a given percentage of the theoretical "weight as calculated from the drawings," it is held that a differ- ent method of calculating the weight, or a deduction from the weight calculated in accordance with the method prescribed in the contract, is not allowable; even if a different method may be in accord with good engineering practice, it is the contract that governs. Id.
VII. Contract provisions are not susceptible to modification or change when they expressly state what may be done thereunder and the method and procedure for making changes; where the record does not sustain a contention that contractor could not possibly observe the provisions of the specifications, and where a choice of method was permitted and the contractor adopted the more expensive way, contractor may not recover. Id.
VIII. Where the record does not support a holding that a claimed misrepresentation of conditions actually misled the contractor, it is held that there is no basis for recovery. Id.
IX. Where a contractor made no investigation of its own as to subsurface conditions, and there is no positive and convincing proof of misrepresentation by the defend- ant as to said conditions, it is held that the plaintiff cannot recover. Id.
X. It is held that under the facts of the case the contract itself determined the rights of the parties and the General Accounting Office was without jurisdiction. McShain Co. v. United States, 83 C. Cls. 405 and authorities therein cited. Rumsey, 254.
XI. Where contractor, in excavating for Government build- ing, encountered a large quantity of reinforced con- crete, not visible from the usual inspection, which it was necessary to remove, it is held that this involved extra work for which contractor is entitled to extra pay in accordance with the decision of the contracting officer. John McShain, Inc., 284.
CONTRACTS-Continued. XII. Where there existed an admitted difference between the specifications and the work called for under the plans, involving the character of backfill over drains, and the contracting officer reached a conclusion by construing the specifications and drawing to exact a backfill of gravel by implication, and the contractor performed this extra work under protest, it is held that the con- tractor is entitled to recover for the added cost. Id. XIII. Where contractor failed to appeal from the decision of the contracting officer, which was his right under the contract, it is held that he cannot now recover. XIV. Where contractor could not meet the requirements of the specifications within the time limit fixed for perform- ance because the Government did not possess title to sufficient lands to enable it to be done, causing the contractor to incur a loss it was not under obligation to incur, it is held that the contractor is entitled to recover. Gillen, 347.
XV. Failure on the part of the Government to make available to a contractor the site upon which the work is to be performed, if it occasions delay in performance and causes damages to the contractor, entitles him to recover his loss. Id.
XVI. Determination of a claim by department officials is not. binding upon the Court but is a fact, a proceeding in
the course of the administration of the transaction, to be given such weight as the Court thinks it is entitled to receive.
XVII. It cannot be inferred from the record that the Govern- ment intended to make the performance of the work extremely costly when a more inexpensive way was available. Id.
XVIII. Where completion of work on remodeling Veterans' Hos-- pital was delayed due to the failure of Government to vacate building and make it available, and where the delay resulted in extra costs due to the weather, it is held that contractor was not liable for liquidated dam- ages and is entitled to recover for such extra costs. MacDonald, 473.
XIX. Where a contractor's delay is caused by the other party to the contract, he cannot be held responsible for not completing the work within the specified time. Id. XX. Where a contractor is prevented from executing his con- tract according to its terms, he is relieved from the obligation of the contract and from paying liquidated damages. Id.
XXI. Where plaintiff entered into a contract with the Govern- ment, through the Civil Works Administration, in response to invitation for bids, to supply and to make available certain quantities of clay, from which plain- tiff, at his expense removed the overburden of sand; and where the Government, after having called for, loaded and hauled away from plaintiff's clay pit a por- tion of the total amount which the Government had agreed to take and to pay for, cancelled the contract, it is held that this constituted a breach of the contract for which the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Tyree, 510. XXII. Where plaintiff had performed his part of the contract by removing the overburden from the clay, and making the clay available for removal by defendant, the meas- ure of plaintiff's damages upon breach of the contract is the difference between the unpaid contract price and the fair value of the clay which the defendant refused to take. Id.
XXIII. Where it is shown by the evidence that the contractor had prosecuted the work with diligence so as to insure its completion within the time allowed by the contract and that the entire fault for the delay was due to the failure of the Government to comply with its part of the contract, it is held that cancellation of the contract by the Government was arbitrary and capricious, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Largura, 531. XXIV. The Government can be required to make compensation to a contractor for damages which he has actually sus- tained by defendant's default in its performance of its undertaking to him. Id.
XXV. While under the authorities plaintiff would have been entitled to whatever profit it could prove it would have made under the contract, it is held that in the instant.
case the proof does not show a profit would have been made. Id.
XXVI. Where construction of the buildings called for by the contract was completed on May 25, 1929, and accepted by the defendant on that date, it is held that the instant suit was not barred by the statute of limitation of six years when the original petition was filed June 27, 1936; since decision on questions arising under the contract was not made, and the amount due plaintiff under the contract was not determined or paid, nor was a final voucher prepared and submitted to plaintiff for execution, as provided in the contract, earlier than July 9, 1930; voucher was transmitted to plaintiff in August 1930, and final payment was made in June 1936. Austin Engineering, 559. 134281-39-c. c.-Vol. 88- -42
XXVII. The rule that all claims under a contract for the purpose of bringing suit accrue when the work called for by the contract is completed and accepted by the Government is not a rule of universal application where it appears from the contract provisions and the existing facts that the amount to which the contractor may be entitled under the contract may be due and payable at a certain time depending upon certain determina- tions, decisions, or action after the actual completion of the work. Id.
XXVIII. The statute of limitation does not begin to run until the right of action "has accrued in a shape to be effectually enforced." United States v. Wirts, 303 U. S. 414, 416. Id.
XXIX. The statute of limitation does not begin to run until the time when payment becomes due under the contract. Id.
XXX. A cause of action or a claim under a contract does not accrue piecemeal, and where a contract contains a pro- vision with reference to the time when the contract shall be regarded as finally concluded, the statute of limitation with reference to bringing suit does not begin to run until that date.
XXXI. Where claims of plaintiff for additional fees, arising out of change orders calling for extra work, were sub- mitted to the Supervising Architect of the Treasury Department, it is held that said claims were settled by the decision of the Supervising Architect in accord- ance with the provisions of the contract. Fourchy, 564. XXXII. The question of whether there was an agreement, as claimed, was within the scope of the matter submitted to the Supervising Architect. Id.
XXXIII. Where it is stated in the contract that architect's fee shall not be due "until the entire scheme has the ap- proval of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attor- ney General," it is held that under the terms of the contract the approval of the Attorney General, who was not a party to the contract, was not necessary in order to enable the architect to recover payment for his services. Id.
XXXIV. If it had been intended that one not a party to the con- tract must manifest his approval, it would have been so stated in the contract.
XXXV. While provisions of the contract with reference to arbi- tration are indefinite, it is held that the intention of the parties to the contract was that if there was failure to agree concerning compensation for work done under
« SebelumnyaLanjutkan » |