109 C. Cls.


XIX. 1. In a suit for damages for alleged breaches by the
defendant of a construction contract, involving
seven buildings the foundations of which were con-
structed under a separate contract; it is held that
plaintiff is not entitled to recover for delay due to
defendant's alleged failure to deliver to plaintiff the
respective sites of certain of the buildings at the
time set forth in the contract, since the sites were
delivered as contemplated by the contract, and, in
addition, the defendant did not agree to deliver the
sites on any specific dates. See United States v.
Foley Co., 329 U. S. 64. Cauldwell-Wingate Com-
pany, 193.

XX. Where both plaintiff's contract and the contract for
the foundation work contained the usual provisions
authorizing the Government to make changes in the
drawings or specifications; and where the changes
made in the foundation contract were made pur-
suant to this provision; it is held that for any delay
incident thereto the plaintiff is not entitled to re-
cover under the decision in United States v. Rice,
317 U. S. 61. Id.

XXI. 2. Where the shop drawings for doors as originally
submitted did not comply with the specifications,
and for that reason were not originally approved,
but upon plaintiff's insistence were finally approved
in order to prevent further delay; it is held that the
defendant was not responsible for this delay and
plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Id.

XXII. 3. Where it is found that the defendant's inspector's
requirement that blemishes be removed from con-
crete ceilings in the houses was not unreasonable
but in accordance with the provisions of the con-
tract; it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover
for the cost of extra work involved in removing the
blemishes. Id.

XXIII. 4. Where defendant's project manager had approved
the drawings submitted by plaintiff with reference
to the installation of rawl drives in anchoring the
plaster partitions; and where defendant's inspector,
in spite of the approval by the project manager, re-
quired the installation of additional rawl drives,
which he had no authority to do; and where plain-
tiff acceded to the inspector's demand without
protesting to the contracting officer; it is held that
plaintiff is barred from recovery on account of its

109 C. Cls.


failure to protest. See United States v. Blair, 321
U. S. 730; Silas Mason Co. v. United States. 105 C.
Cls. 27. Id.

XXIV. 5. Where, after amended instructions were given with
reference to the inspector's requirement that the
plastered partitions be exactly plumb and true,
plaintiff made no further written protest against the
requirements of the inspectors and also failed to take
any appeal to the head of the department from the
adverse ruling of the contracting officer on its claim;
it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover on this
item. Id.

XXV. 6. Where plaintiff made no protest against most of the
requirements of the inspectors; and where in no case
did plaintiff take an appeal to the head of the
department from the adverse ruling of the contracting
officer, as required under Article 15 of the contract;
the court, after careful examination of plaintiff's
other claims, in which no merit is discovered, holds
that plaintiff is not entitled to recover on any items
of its claim. Id.

XXVI. Property rights, as such, are by no means the only
matters the full enjoyment of which may be protected
by contract, and for which a contracting party may
be required to respond in damages in the event the
agreement is breached; and where something other
than a strict property right is the object of concern
the difficulty of ascertaining the damage in event of
breach would appear to make a stipulation as to
liquidated damages only the more desirable. See
Sun Printing & Publishing Assn. v. Moore, 183
U.-S. 642, 670. Oregon-Washington R. R. & Nav.
Co. v. United States, 58 C. Cls. 645, 648, reaffirmed.
Weathers Bros. Transfer Co., Inc., 310.

XXVII. In the instant case, in which plaintiff is seeking to be
compensated for transporting property not owned by
the Government but for the transportation of which
the Government had contracted with plaintiff, the
plaintiff is saying with respect to defendant's counter-
claim that, because the goods transported under a
prior contract were not the property of the Govern-
ment, plaintiff cannot be required under any circum-
stances to respond in damages to the Government for
a breach of this prior contract; and the court holds
that plaintiff's contention cannot be sustained, and
plaintiff is not entitled to recover for liquidated
damages deducted under the prior contract. Id.

109 C. Cls.


XXVIII. If it is true that the Government may obligate itself to
furnish transportation for property not its own,
such as household goods of Army officers, as in the
instant case, and be required to pay for such trans-
portation at the rates provided for the carrying of
private property; then, and in that event, the Gov-
ernment may fairly contract to protect such non-
property interest as it may have in the goods trans-
ported. Id.

XXIX. It cannot be reasonably concluded that the Govern-
ment did not have a material stake in the undertak-
ing by plaintiff to transfer the household goods of
certain Army officers within agreed dates, whether
its primary concern was for the convenience and
welfare of its military personnel whose goods it had
undertaken to move or whether it was primarily
concerned with the possible disruption of its military
operations and the tangible and intangible losses
which might accrue to it therefrom. Id.

XXX. 1. Where under the provisions of a contract with the
Government for the construction of a part of a hous-
ing project, the plaintiff was obligated to pay me-
chanics and laborers minimum wages as determined
by the Secretary of Labor to be the prevailing wages
therefor in the community in which the work was to
be done, as required by the Davis-Bacon Act, as
amended; and where, at the request of plaintiff and
for plaintiff's benefit, the determination of the Secre-
tary for wages of carpenters was increased from
$1.25 per hour to $1.35 per hour; it is held that the
plaintiff is not entitled to recover for the increased
labor costs thereby incurred. Albert & Harrison,
Inc. v. United States, 107 C. Cls. 292; certiorari
denied, 331 U. S. 810, distinguished. Paretta Con-
struction Company, 324.

XXXI. 2. Where the contract fixed the minimum wage to be
paid common laborers at 65 cents per hour, as deter-
mined by the Secretary of Labor for the community;
and where, thereafter, under a ruling of the Wage
Adjustment Board, permission was given to increase
the wage rate of laborers from 65 cents to 80 cents per
hour; and where plaintiff declined to pay this in-
creased rate until ordered to do so by the project
engineer under threat of termination of the contract;
it is held that, since the contract required no more
than that plaintiff pay a minimum of 65 cents an
hour and since the ruling of the Wage Adjustment

109 C. Cls.


Board amounted to no more than permission to pay
as much as 80 cents an hour and did not require
plaintiff to do so, plaintiff is entitled to recover the
increased labor costs thereby incurred. See Em-
ployees Group of Motor Freight Carriers v. National
War Labor Board, 143 F. (2d) 145. Id.

XXXII. Plaintiff paid the increased wages of common laborers
as a result of the wrongful demand of defendant's
representative in charge of the work, and hence de-
fendant should pay the increased cost resulting
therefrom. Id.

XXXIII. In the contract in suit, the contract and specifications
did not contain the usual provision relating to a
protest to the contracting officer against any ruling of
defendant's representative on the job, and in the
absence of such a provision the defendant is bound
by the wrongful acts of its representative on the
job. Id.

XXXIV. Whether or not the contract required plaintiff to pay
the increased wages to common laborers was not a
question of fact but of law; and the contract did not
require plaintiff to appeal to the contracting officer
a ruling of the project engineer on the legal inter-
pretation of the contract. Id.

XXXV. 3. Under plaintiff's contract to construct the founda-
tions, which was provided for under a change order;
it is held that plaintiff was obligated to protect the
work it had done on the foundations and is not en-
titled to recover for the damage to the piers and
footings caused by frost. Id.

XXXVI. In a contract with the Government for the construc-
tion of a levee along the Illinois River and one of
its tributaries, where the contract provided that
labor should first be secured from the relief rolls;
and where it was not possible to secure skilled and
semiskilled labor from this source; and where it is
found from the evidence that the contract provision
did not cause the plaintiff to use unskilled labor un-
economically; it is held that the plaintiff is not en-
titled to recover for excessive labor costs in the
completion of the contract. Stiers Bros. Construc-
tion Company, 353.

XXXVII. In a contract with the the Government for the con-
struction of a levee along the Illinois River and one
of its tributaries, where it was provided that mate-
rial should be taken from depressions between the

109 C. Cls.


levee and the river which were to be filled with
spoil from dredging operations being carried on in
the river; it is held that there was no misrepresenta-
tion as to the contents of the borrow pits and plain-
tiff is not entitled to recover. Id.

XXXVIII. Where the plaintiff appealed in writing to the Chief of
Engineers from the decision of the contracting
officer with respect to changed conditions encoun-
tered; and where the Chief of Engineers refused to
pass on the merits of the claim because the appeal
had not been filed within the time limit prescribed
by the contract; it is held that plaintiff is not en-

titled to recover.

XXXIX. Upon the evidence presented as to alleged delays by
reason of difficulty in securing relief labor, which the
contractor claimed caused abandonment of work
by a subcontractor and which the contractor also
claimed caused the greater employment of hand
labor for work which might have been otherwise done
by machinery; and upon the showing made that
the contractor failed to take advantage of the
contract provisions for requesting extensions of time
and for filing appeals; it is held that plaintiff is not
entitled to recover liquidated damages deducted
without protest in final settlement for delays in
completion of the contract. Id.

XL. In a contract for the construction of certain buildings
at Fort Crook, Nebraska, and for other work, in-
cluding certain excavation work, in connection there-
with, where the contractors interpreted certain pro-
visions of the specifications as providing for pay-
ment for excavation within the building lines at
$1.29 per cubic yard, as "common excavation," and
not at 22 cents per cubic yard, as "unclassified ex-
cavation"; it is held that the interpretation placed on
the provisions by the contractors was reasonable,
and plaintiffs are entitled to recover. Peter Kiewit
Sons' Company (No. 46432), 390.

XLI. Where the Government draws specifications which
are fairly susceptible of a certain construction and
the contractor so construes them, justice and equity
require that construction to be adopted. Id.

XLII. Where one of the parties to a contract draws the docu-
ment and uses language which is susceptible of more
than one meaning, and the intention of the parties
does not otherwise appear, that meaning will be

« ForrigeFortsett »