The plaintiff's wharf at Jacksonville was used for docking the barges in transferring cargo from the railroad cars of plaintiff to the vessels. In October 1950, because of financial losses, the Shipping Com- pany ceased operations. Eventually the charter was terminated by the Navy, under the terms of the charter, because of default by the Shipping Company, and the Navy ordered the vessels delivered to the Navy at Charleston and at Green Cove Springs. However, the vessels were never delivered by the Shipping Company, as directed, but were left at plaintiff's Jacksonville docks, until removed by the Navy. In the instant suit the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company claims wharfage from the Gov- ernment for the period October 4, 1950, to February 21, 1951. Id.
VI. It is held that plaintiff's cause of action, if any, arose as an incident to the employment of the barges, under charter, as merchant vessels. The vessels remained merchant vessels until delivered as directed by the Navy. Any claim which plaintiff might have relative to them would be cognizable in the United States District Court under the Suits in Admiralty Act. See Field v. United States, 125 C. Cls. 559, certiorari denied, 346 U. S. 922, and cases cited therein. Id. 518.
VII. Claims for wharfage, whether in the nature of a contract or lien, have long been recognized as causes of action within the admiralty jurisdiction. Id.
See also Contract Settlement Act I, II; Contracts XXIII, XXX, XXXI, XXXII; Pay and Allowances XVI, XVII, XVIII; Statute of Limitations II, III, IV, V; Suit For Salary IX, X, XXXII.
See Contracts XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL, XLI. LUCAS ACT.
I. Where plaintiff's claim for extra-legal relief for losses incurred under a war contract is presented under the provisions of the War Contract Hardship Claims Act (Lucas Act) 60 Stat. 902, as amended; and where it is shown by the evidence that the losses incurred by the plaintiff were not incurred without
fault or negligence on the part of plaintiff in the performance of the contract, as required by the Act; it is held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Reltool Service, 14.
II. Plaintiff was a subcontractor with another contractor which in 1943 entered into a contract with the War Department to supply high explosive shells for the war effort. Plaintiff was encouraged by the War Department and by the prime contractor to partici- pate in the war effort and was given assistance, tech- nical and financial, by the prime contractor, from time to time, but was unable to produce satisfactorily and on time, in accordance with its subcontract. Id. United States 74 (17).
III. On all the evidence, and the report of a commissioner of the court, it is found that plaintiff's failure to produce, in accordance with the provisions of the subcontract, was due to inadequate technical man- agement, improper plant facilities and equipment, financial instability, interference by unskilled man- agers with technical plant operations, and failure to adhere to proper forging methods.
IV. It is held that plaintiff's losses were not incurred without fault or negligence on its part and hence plaintiff is precluded from recovery under the Lucas Act. Id. United States 74 (17).
V. Where the instant case is before the United States Court of Claims on the issue whether, under the facts as proved, the plaintiff has legal standing to recover under the War Contract Hardship Claims Act, commonly known as the Lucas Act, it is held that the plaintiff has a right to recover if in further pro- ceedings it makes the necessary proof of loss. Ross Engineering, 27.
VI. In May 1943 plaintiff entered into a contract with the United States for the construction of an Armed Guard School at Camp Bradford, Virginia. The plaintiff lost money on certain phases of the per- formance of its contract, and requested relief for those losses under the First War Powers Act, which was
denied. After the enactment of the plaintiff took the prescribed steps to United States Court of Claims. Id. United States
VII. In a suit under the Lucas Act, where the Government asserts fault or negligence, within the meaning of the Act, by reason of mistakes in the contractor's bid, resulting in losses for which suit is brought; it is held that such mistakes were not such fault or negli- gence as to preclude recovery under the Act. The decision in Spicer v. United States, 127 C. Cls. 428, is affirmed. Id.
VIII. In the computation of plaintiff's bid relating to some road work, a marking of square yards on a drawing was mistaken for square feet, resulting in an estimate for only one-ninth as much road to be built as actu- ally had to be built. The mistake was called to plaintiff's attention but plaintiff thought it could make up for the loss by its profit on other parts of the contract, and did not change its bid. A heavy loss was incurred. Id.
IX. Where the contract stated that the contractor should furnish and install the collateral equipment; that he should include a cash allowance of $130,000 for furnishing the equipment; and that if it cost more than that to furnish the equipment, the contractor would be compensated for the additional cost, the plaintiff, in making its bid, misread the contract to mean that the $130,000 cash allowance was for both furnishing and installing the equipment, and did not include in its bid anything for installing the equip- ment, which work cost it a considerable sum; it is held that the mistake in bidding was not fault or negligence which barred recovery under the Lucas Act. Id.
X. Where it is shown that the contractor's work was delayed by an excessive number of rainy days, and to make up for the lost time, employees were worked overtime and were paid a large amount of premium pay therefor, entailing loss on the contractor; it is held that the loss is recoverable under the Lucas Act
unless found to be due to some fault or negligence of the plaintiff. No such finding has been made. Id. United States 74 (17).
XI. Losses recoverable under the Lucas Act are not limited to losses peculiar to wartime. Id.
XII. In a prior case (No. 46804) reported 118 C. Cls. 527, where plaintiff sued the Government for breach of contract, it was held that the plaintiff's asserted con- struction of the contract provision relating to collat- eral equipment was wrong and that plaintiff had not taken an appeal from the contracting officer's refusal to grant an extension of time on account of excessive rains. Recovery was denied as a con- tractual right.
XIII. Where a contractor, who requested First War Powers relief, had, or possibly had, a legal claim which he did not pursue, it is held that he is not thereby pre- Icluded from suing for relief under the Lucas Act in the United States Court of Claims. United States
XIV. Where, in a suit in the United States District Court brought by its subcontractor against the plaintiff in the instant case, the plaintiff filed a counterclaim asserting that due to the negligence of the subcon- tractor in failing to complete promptly the drainage and road work which the subcontractor had con- tracted to perform and plaintiff had been thereby delayed and obliged to use an excessive amount of overtime work; and where in the instant suit the Government alleges that the testimony of the plaintiff's president in the District Court suit was so inconsistent with his testimony in the instant suit it would be immoral to allow the plaintiff to have the benefit of his testimony in the instant suit; it is held that in the facts alleged there is no reason for, in effect, forfeiting the plaintiff's right. Id.
See Contracts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
See Suit for Salary XVII, XVIII, XIX.
OVERSEAS DIFFERENTIAL.
See Suit for Salary IV, V, VI, VII.
OVERTIME PAY.
I. Following the decisions in Marr v. United States, 123 C. Cls. 474, and Andrews, et al. v. United States, 126 C. Cls. 571, the defendant consents to granting of plaintiffs' motions as to seven of the nine plaintiffs in the instant case. It is held that the other two plaintiffs are entitled to recover. Defendant's mo- tion for summary judgment is denied. Albin, 204. United States 113.
II. Where it has been held that notices of settlement issued by the Comptroller General and the acqui- escence in these settlements by the claimants consti- tuted accords, which were contracts that could be sued upon by the claimants, the Government could not unilaterally cancel such contracts. United States
III. In the instant case the Government shows that, as to the plaintiff Ben H. Pratt, his certificate of settlement was issued July 7, 1950, and was cancelled May 31, 1951. The Government contention is not sustained that under the provisions of Section 74 of Title 34, U. S. Code, providing that the Comptroller General may revise his decision in any case within one year, his "cancellation" of the decision in the instant case was final. Congress could not have intended to make all such agreements tentative for one year. Id. United States 113.
IV. In the case of the plaintiff John Elmer Peterson, where it is shown that his certificate of settlement was issued May 17, 1950, and was cancelled May 31, 1951, but that the instructions of the Comptroller General to cancel the settlement were given on April 25, 1951, it is held an internal notation of the intentions of the Comptroller General, without notice to the claimant, was of no effect. Id.
PARTNERSHIP.
See Taxes VIII, IX, X, XI, XII.
« PreviousContinue » |