Priebe & Sons v. United States
Decision Date | 06 May 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 45922.,45922. |
Parties | PRIEBE & SONS, Inc., v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Claims Court |
J. Arthur Miller, of Chicago, Ill. (Campbell, Clark & Miller, of Chicago, Ill., and Morris, Kixmiller & Baar and Allen H. Gardner, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for plaintiff.
S. R. Gamer, of Washington, D. C., John F. Sonnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before WHALEY, Chief Justice, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, JONES, and MADDEN, Judges.
The only question presented in this case is whether plaintiff is entitled to recover $14,482.90 liquidated damage deducted by defendant under the express terms of a contract by reason of the failure of plaintiff to have certain quantities, totalling 114,829 pounds, of dried eggs manufactured, inspected, tested, accepted and ready for delivery or shipment in part at Manning, Iowa, and in part at Sleepy Eye, Minn., on the contract date of May 18, 1942. Six certain lots of the eggs at these two points were not ready for delivery until May 20, 21, and 22, respectively, and the stipulated liquidated damage of 10 cents a pound was accordingly charged and deducted from amounts otherwise due plaintiff. This contract called for 200,000 pounds but the balance of 45,945 pounds is not here in question.
In 1941 the Government through the Agricultural Marketing Administration (herein referred to as AMA) and the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation (herein referred to as FCC), agencies of the Department of Agriculture, entered upon a program of purchasing, through contracts, dried or powdered eggs. Plaintiff commenced its dried egg business almost at the inception of this program and did a very large amount of such business under such contracts with FCC before and after April 23, 1942, the date of the contract for dried eggs involved in this case. Plaintiff was familiar with the program, the details of the Government operations in connection therewith, and the relationship of the program to the war effort.
The contract in suit was entitled "Announcement FSC-553, Purchase of Dried Egg Products."
The detailed facts, about which there is no dispute, concerning the making on April 23, 1942, of the written contract in suit and the terms and conditions thereof are set forth in findings 3-5. Plaintiff fixed the delivery date of May 18, 1942, for the 200,000 pounds of dried eggs (herein sometimes called powder) called for by the contract under par. 1(c) thereof, which required that the seller state "The beginning date of the delivery period during which the vendor agrees to make delivery (N. B. Par. 7 — Delivery)." Paragraphs 3 and 4 related to inspection and grading and the chemical analysis to be used in the examination and testing of samples (. 3) Paragraph 4 required that inspection of the powder must be by the AMA and made it incumbent on plaintiff to arrange for such service. In addition it was provided that Inspection certificates were issued and dated on the day defendant completed the analysis of samples at its Chicago Laboratory and plaintiff was immediately notified by wire whether the samples had or had not met the required test and was given the number of each certificate for each lot so inspected. There was no delay in inspecting, weighing, taking samples of each lot and analyzing them. The AMA inspector weighed and took samples of each of the six lots here involved on the first or second day after completion of manufacture and these samples were tested and analyzed as promptly as was possible. The final inspection certificates for the powder here involved were issued from 4 to 7 days after the date on which samples of each lot were taken. Plaintiff does not claim that inspection certificates should or could have been issued earlier.
Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the contract provided, so far as here material, as follows:
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
The liquidated damage of $14,482.90 at the agreed rate of 10 cents a pound was imposed and deducted from the contract price in making payments to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Priebe Sons v. United States
...that there had been a breach of contract for which the United States was entitled to 'liquidated damages,' dismissed the petition. 65 F.Supp. 457, 460. We construe the contract to mean that the time for delivery by petitioner was not May 18, 1942 but the time or times chosen by the FSCC wit......
- United States v. Ganaposki