페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

COMMUTATION OF QUARTERS, ETC.

I. An officer of the Navy is not on duty in the field

merely because he is stationed in the Philippine Islands,
and where he was on shore duty at a permanent station
therein he was not entitled to the benefits of the act of
April 16, 1918, providing for commutation of quarters,
heat, and light in right of wife and dependent child.

Harte, 70.
II. The quarters available under section 6 of the act of

May 31, 1924, must be such as are adequate for an
officer's dependents as well as for himself, and where
the quarters furnished him are not only inadequate for
that purpose but for administrative reasons his de-
pendents would not have been permitted to occupy them,
he is entitled to commutation of quarters. Bell,

administrator, 182.
COMPROMISE OF TAXES.

See Taxes, I.
CONTRACTS.

I. Where Government contracts involving experimental

work in the manufacture of airplane engines provide
for deliveries on certain dates, and both parties down
to the date of cancellation disregard the dates of deliv-
ery and treat the contracts as continuing, the contrac-
tor is entitled to the sum expended by it with the con-
sent and approval of the Government in the construc-
tion and production of the articles named. Kessler

Motor Co., 1.
II. In pursuance of a proviso contained in the appropriation

act of March 2, 1907, the company of which plaintiff is
receiver agreed to perform the dredging work in the
construction of a harbor suitable for commerce, of
which 400 acres should have a depth of 30 feet. The
inlet to the harbor was a Government channel with a
permanent depth of 25 feet, which limited the avail-
ability of the harbor. The company dredged 250 acres
of the harbor and a channel from the harbor proper to
the inlet, both to a depth of 30 feet, a large portion of
the remainder of the harbor having a depth of from 20
to 30 feet, making the harbor suitable for commerce.
Held, that in the absence of actual damage the Govern-
ment can not recover on a counterclaim for failure to
attain a 30-foot depth over the entire 400 acres.

Schroth, receiver, 49.
III. In a contract for sale of milk to the Government, under

which certain excess profits were to be refunded, the
correct ascertainment of profit was upon the actual
cost of filling the particular order, where only one order
and satisfactory test, the article is delivered in such
condition that it can not be tested, instead of being
repaired by the contractor is returned at its request
and resold, upon such request the Government declares
the contract of sale revoked and returns the amount
deposited as guaranty of performance, which is ac-
cepted, and the contractor at no time makes an offer
to replace the article, there is a mutual rescission of
the contract, and the contractor can not recover for

CONTRACTS—Continued.

was given, and not upon the average cost of that and
all other orders given to the contractor in his year's

business. Libby, McNeill & Libby, 64.
IV. In seeking recovery against a plaintiff in the Court of

Claims by way of counterclaim, the Government must
establish its right to recover by proper and sufficient
evidence, and where a contract to furnish the Govern-
ment coal required the same to be of certain standard,
the test to be made from samples, collected and pre-
pared, if the contractor so elected, in his presence, and
the evidence is that the contractor was given no notice
or opportunity to be present when the samples were
taken, and was not notified that any samples had been
taken until a year after the Government had accepted
the coal and paid therefor the price payable for coal
up to standard, the Government can not recover the
difference in price provided for in the contract for coal

below the standard fixed. Heid Bros., 87.
V. 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; measure of damages. Libby,

McNeill & Libby, 341; Oberndorfer, liquidator, 376.
VI. Upon finding that plaintiff's contract was duly canceled

and delay in delivery of articles was due to the Govern-
ment's delay in delivering materials called for by the
contract, liquidated damages for delay were remitted
and judgment was entered for plaintiff in accordance
with the provisions of the termination clause. Kissel

Motor Car Co., 364.
VII. Where the sale of an article is conditioned upon delivery

loss sustained in the transaction. Carroll et al., 400.
VIII. Bond for performance; premium part of cost. Mason

& Hanger Co., 424.
IX. Due to necessities of the war, work on a fixed-price

contract for the construction of the battleship Idaho
in excess of eight hours per day, the requirements of
the eight-hour law having been suspended by the
President, was urged upon the shipbuilder by the

CONTRACTS—Continued.

Secretary of the Navy with a statement that the in-
crease of cost occasioned thereby would be taken up
later. In compliance with the Secretary's request the
shipbuilder employed overtime and by agreement the
Government was at all times kept informed of the
amount thereof. Held, that this, in light of the policy
of the Navy Department showing an intention to make
reimbursement in such cases, was evidence of an agree-
ment to reimburse the contractor the excess cost of

such overtime. New York Shipbuilding Co., 457.
X. Where a shipbuilder, having under construction in its

yards ships for the Emergency Fleet Corporation under
cost-plus contracts, on which it was required under an
award of the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board to
pay increased wages, by reason thereof found it neces-
sary to make corresponding increases in work on a
fixed-price contract for the construction of a battleship,
and was informed by the Secretary of the Navy that
his department expected to pay unavoidable increases
in cost due to adoption of the new wage scale, there
was an agreement to reimburse the contractor such

increases on the fixed-price contract. Id.
81. (1) An advertisement for bids, made part of a contract

for dredging, provided that “the material to be removed
is believed to be sand, clay, gravel, and boulders, but
bidders are expected to examine the work and decide
for themselves as to its character and to make their
bids accordingly, as the United States does not guar-
antee the accuracy of this description.” The cost of a
complete and thorough examination of the work be-
tween advertisement and bidding was prohibitive and
the successful bidder, believing the description given in
the advertisement to be accurate, relied upon it and bid
accordingly, but before entering into the contract in-
quired of the Government's representative as to the
nature of the material to be dredged and was given no
information beyond that contained in the advertise-
ment, although the said representative knew that hard-
pan would be encountered, necessitating difficult and
costly excavation. Held, that the contractor was en-
titled to recover the additional cost of excavating the
hardpan.

(2) During the course of the work above described the
contractor requested additional compensation or relief
from the contract, which requests were refused, and
was also refused payment of the stipulated price unless
certificates were furnished from time to time, limiting
the description of the material dredged to “stiff clay”

[ocr errors]

CONTRACTS—Continued.

and “hard clay." The contractor signed the required
certificates and received the bid price. Held, that the
Government could not benefit by reason of such coercion.

(3) In the above circumstances the contractor held
not liable for the additional cost of delay in completing
the work due to the difference in material as repre-
sented and as actually excavated. Dunbar & Sullivan

Dredging Co., 567.
XII. A contract with the Government for reconstruction of a

ship provided for deduction of liquidated damages for
delay only where the delay was not for the convenience
of the Government or not due to acts of God. But for
the failure of the Government to furnish materials and
supplies when required and promptly approve the plans,
and for its removal of the vessel to another pier, which
was unnecessary, the contractor could have completed
the work on contract time. Held, that deduction of
liquidated damages was improper and the contractor
could also recover the additional expense due to the
Government's delay and interference with the work.

Weehawken Dry Dock Co., 662, 672, 686.
XIII. Where a Government contract for coal provides for de-

livery "as called for,” and the entire tonnage specified
in the contract is duly covered by calls, an order by the
Government to cease deliveries and a refusal by it to
accept the balance constitute a breach for which the
contractor can recover damages. Sinclair Coal Co.,

704; Kellogg et al., 717.
XIV. Where a contract for coal to be furnished the Govern-

ment is with a sales agent, and it is agreed that the
contract price is to be increased or decreased according
to increase or decrease in wages, the contractor, in
the ascertainment of damages for refusal to take the
entire quantity contracted for, is entitled to the benefit

of a wage increase in effect at time of breach. Id.
XV. A contract whereby the Government was to furnish the

materials therefor and the contractor was to manu-
facture tents included the following provision : "Note:
The contractor will be held liable for any loss of, or
damage to, any of the materials furnished by the
Quartermaster Corps, from any cause whatsoever, while
in his possession." A number of the tents when com-
pleted and ready for delivery were retained by the
contractor at the Government's request and for its
convenience, and after such request were, together with
the materials not worked up destroyed by fire through
no fault of the contractor. Held, that the provision
for liability was a valid contractual stipulation, not
CONTRACTS-Continued.

a mere legal conclusion; but that the contractor was
liable only for the value of the unworked material fur-
nished by the Government and entitled to the contract
price of the manufactured articles retained at the

Government's request. Burkhart, receiver, 738.
See also Dent Act; Eminent Domain, V, X, XI; Jurisdiction;

Practice and Procedure; Sale of Supplies; Settlement Con-

tracts; Taxes, IV, IX, XXVII.
COUNTERCLAIMS.

See Contracts, II, IV.
DELAYS.

See Contracts, VI, XI (3), XII.
DENT ACT.

I. Jurisdiction; decision by Secretary of War prerequisite

to suit under Dent Act. Everlastik, 171.
II. In order to keep the price of hay and forage during the

war from rising beyond a reasonable figure, and at the
same time secure prompt deliveries at training camps,
the Government, at conferences between its representa-
tives and representatives of hay and forage dealers gener-
ally, including plaintiffs, agreed to discontinue advertise-
ment and proposal, in lieu thereof follow commercial prac-
tices, and to confirm all verbal purchases by formal
orders. Circulars covering the various features of the
agreement were mailed to plaintiffs and other dealers,
and the plan was put into practice. Held, that the
general agreement so entered into was an essential part
of every order placed thereunder, and constituted a valid
contract the breach of which was ground for recovery.
Miller et al., 506; Dyer & Co., 612; Shofstall Hay &

Grain Co., 653.
See also Contracts, V; Jurisdiction, II.
DEPENDENTS.

See Commutation of Quarters, etc.
DISCOVERY.

See Jurisdiction, I.
DIVIDENDS.

See Taxes, XI.
EMINENT DOMAIN.

I. Just compensation allowed for the taking of certain

lands by the President's proclamation of December
2, 1918, issued under authority of the act of October
6, 1917, as amended by the act of July 1, 1918. Schroth,

receiver, 49.
II. Federal control act; absence of actual taking. Nevada

California-Oregon Ry., 75.

« 이전계속 »