Page images
PDF
EPUB

154 Ct. Cl.

CONTRACTS Continued
PUBLIC UTILITY CONTRACT.
Gas.
Rates applicable.
Like conditions of service.

How determined.
In determining whether the Government is getting the benefit of a
contract provision guaranteeing that the rates charged it for natural
gas are not in excess of the lowest rates available to other customers
of the public utility under “like conditions of service", and where
there is no dispute between the parties as to the characteristics or
conditions of service which affect the rates to be charged in any case,
the conditions of service of a class of customers as a whole are to
be compared with the Government's plants rather than with each

separate condition of service. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 654.
Gas em 14.1(3)

State regulation.
Where the Government has a provision in its contract to purchase
natural gas from the plaintiff at rates not in excess of the lowest
rates charged other customers of the plaintiff operating under "like
conditions of service", the State in which the service is contracted
for and performed is a factor to be considered in determining whether
"like conditions" existed, particularly where the contracts were
entered into in the light of the regulatory structures existing in each

State involved. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 654.
Gas Cum 14.1(3)
TERMINATION.
Contract Settlement Act.

Interest on claim.
Under the provisions of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41
U.S.C. $ 101, et seq., the contractor may have interest on the amount
of its claim at the rate of two and one-half percent, commencing 30

days after termination. North American Philips Co., 754.
United States On 74(16)

Reimbursable costs.

Capital equipment.
Upon the termination of a ten-year research and development con-
tract at the end of three and one-half years, where the contract
provides that title to the property purchased for the performance
of the contract shall vest in the Government, and that the contractor
shall be reimbursed for 60 percent of the cost of the equipment on
a monthly basis spread out over the ten-year term, the contractor is
entitled to recover its unreimbrused share of the original cost of

such capital equipment. North American Philips Co., 754.
United States On 74 (16)

154 Ct. Cl.

CONTRACTS Continued
TERMINATION-Continued
Reimbursable costs-Continued

Inventory items (experimental prototypes).
Upon the termination of a ten-year research and development
contract at the end of only three and one-half years, the contractor
has an equity in the termination inventory for which he is entitled
to be paid and this will cover all reusable items which are clearly
inventory items. Prototypes of engines which were the end result
of three so-called task orders completed at the time of termination,
however, are not true inventory items because they could not have
been used on further work under the contract had the contractor
been permitted to complete it. The cost of the prototypes was
not a true measure of their value. The real value of the prototypes
to the contractor was the know-how acquired in their development
and manufacture and upon the termination of the contract the
contractor had no equity in the three prototypes completed. North

American Philips Co., 754.
United States om 74(16)

Post-termination expense.
Where, upon the termination of a contract for the convenience of

Government, the cont tor arranges for the sale of capital
equipment to Columbia University and the title to the equipment
is in the Government, the contractor is entitled to be paid for
such post-termination expenditures representing expenses incurred

in disposing of the property. North American Philips Co., 754.
United States em 74(16)

Termination expenses.
Where a termination provision of a contract provides that the con-
tractor shall be reimbursed for costs and expenses which were
reimbursable under the contract up to the date of termination and
for such of the costs as might continue for a reasonable time there-
after with the approval of the contracting officer, “which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld", it is unreasonable for the
contracting officer to withhold his approval of reimbursement of
termination costs actually paid by the contractor and which were

necessary and proper. North American Philips Co., 754.
United States Om 74(16)
VALIDITY.
Provision in violation of statute.

Merchant Marine Act of 1936.
Where one has a right under a statute or under a legal doctrine
implicit in a statute, that right is not effectively surrendered by a
contract purporting to do so. Thus, where the Merchant Marine
Act of 1936, 49 Stat. 1985, 46 U.S.C. 88 1101-1294, indicates a
congressional intent that there be a fair measure of stability in
154 Ct. Cl.

CONTRACTS Continued
VALIDITY-Continued
Provision in violation of statute-Continued

Merchant Marine Act of 1936-Continued
subsidy contracts and that subsidized operators receive generally
equal treatment, an operator does not lose such rights by executing
a contract which contains discriminatory provisions depriving him
of as favorable treatment as others similarly situated. American

President Lines, 695.
Shipping cm 3
CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT. See Contracts.

COURT OF CLAIMS.
JURISDICTION.
Civilian pay claims.

Not covered by the Lloyd-La Follette Act.
Suits for back pay of civilian Government positions in the Court
of Claims are not confined to suits for pay which was wrongfully
withheld in violation of the provisions of the 1948 amendment to
the Lloyd-La Follette Act (62 Stat. 354, 5 U.S.C. 8 652), providing
for the administrative payment of back pay upon reinstatement

under that act. Daub, 434.
Armed Services Om 27

Military pay claims.
Discharge of military personnel.

Review of discharge by Court of Claims.
The Court of Claims has jurisdiction to construe applicable law
to determine whether the Secretary of one of the military services
exceeded his powers in discharging a person from military service.
Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579; Clackum v. United States, 148

Ct. Cl. 404. Murray, 185.
Armed Services On 23.5

CREDIT FOR CHARTER HIRE. See Contracts.

CREDITS. See Income Tax.

DAMAGES. See Contracts.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. See Civilian Pay.
DEDUCTIONS. See Income Tax.

DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD. See Military Pay.
DISCHARGE. See Military Pay.
DISCHARGE OF MILITARY PERSONNEL. See Court of Claims.
DISCHARGE UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS. See Military Pay.
DISCHARGE-WRONGFUL OR INVALID. See Military Pay.
DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY. See Contracts.

154 Ct. Cl.

DISCRIMINATION IN APPLICATION OF REGULATION OF EXECU.

TIVE DEPARTMENT. See Regulation of Executive Department.
DISMISSAL. See Civilian Pay.
DISPUTES. See Contracts.

DIVORCE. See Income Tax.

DOCTORS DRAFT ACT. See Military Pay.
DRAFT REGISTRATIONS_SUCCESSIVE. See Military Pay.
DUAL EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTION. See Civilian Pay.
ENLISTMENT FOR FIXED TERM. See Military Pay.
ENTITLEMENT TO RETIREMENT. See Military Pay.
EQUITY AND JUSTICE. See Japanese-American Evacuation Claims.
ESTIMATED COSTS. See Contracts.

ESTIMATED QUANTITIES. See Contracts.

ESTOPPEL.
PATENTS.

File-wrapper estoppel.
The cancellation of unillustrated subject matter after a request
by the patent examiner that it be illustrated does not constitute
file-wrapper estoppel such as would prevent a patentee from as-
serting that the allowed claims also covered the cancelled descrip-

tion. Straussler, 275.
Patents Om 168(1)
ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT. See Judgments.

EXPENSES. See Income Tax,

EXTRA COSTS OF WORK. See Contracts.
FILE-WRAPPER ESTOPPEL. See Estoppel.

GAS. See Contracts.

GERMAN OCCUPATION CLAIMS.
REQUISITION DEMAND.

Not a contract.
“Requisition Demands" issued by the United States Military author-
ities in Germany, although in the form of a contract, were not con-
tracts but were orders to secure work or services necessary to the
Allied occupation of Germany. The United States Army in Ger-
many did not have the authority to contract for such work or sup-
plies and the Allied High Commission for Germany, for whom the
Army acted as agent, was an international body with no capacity to

sue or be sued. Best, 827.
International Law Om 10.46
War and National Defense Om 14

670-595–6357

154 Ct. CL

GERMAN OCCUPATION CLAIMSContinued
REQUISITION DEMAND-Continued

Not a taking.
Where the Allied High Commission for Germany, acting through
the United States military authorities, refused to order the German
Government to pay a German business firm amounts representing ex-
tra costs of doing work under a "Requisition Demand" issued by
the United States Army for the work done in connection with the
occupation, there was no taking of any property of the German firm
for which just compensation is payable under the Fifth Amendment
to the Constitution. The taking, if any, was not by the United States,

but by the Allied High Commission for Germany. Best, 827.
War and National Defense em 14
GOVERNMENT CARGO. See Carriers.

INFORMATION TO BIDDERS. See Contracts.

INTEREST. See Contracts.
INTERNAL REVENUE ACT OF 1951. See Income Tax.
INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS. See Contracts.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. See Carriers.

INVENTORY ITEMS. See Contracts.
JAPANESE-AMERICAN EVACUATION CLAIMS.
LOSSES.

Evacuation losses due to anticipation of evacuation.
Where it is established that the imminent prospect of evacuation
impelled an American of Japanese ancestry to deed her property
over in satisfaction of a mortgage representing only a minor fraction
of the value of her property, which property would have produced
crops that summer of sufficient value to pay off the mortgage, and
such unreasonable action can be directly attributed to the threat
of evacuation and to poor advice of unsympathetic counsel, the losses
so incurred are recoverable under the provisions of the Japanese-
American Evacuation Claims Act of 1948 as amended, 70 Stat. 513.

Sonoda, 130.
United States om 99

Losses attributable to the poor climate of public opinion against
American-born Japanese in the winter of 1941-1942 are not losses
within the scope of the Japanese-American Evacuation Claims Act
of 1948 as amended, 70 Stat. 513. Thus, the inability of an American
of Japanese ancesrty to hire sufficient farm help to raise and har-
vest a crop is not chargeable to evacuation or threatened evacuation
of the farmer, but rather to public animosity against the people of
Japanese ancestry and such crop losses are not recoverable under the

terms of the act. Sonoda, 130.
United States om 99

« PreviousContinue »