Fruhauf Southwest Garment Co. v. United States
Decision Date | 05 May 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 49239.,49239. |
Parties | FRUHAUF SOUTHWEST GARMENT CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Max H. Walls, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Thomas H. McGrail, Washington, D. C., with whom was Holmes Baldridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and HOWELL, Judges.
The plaintiff, a Kansas corporation with its place of business at Wichita, Kansas, seeks to recover the sum of $48,560 alleged to be the difference between the amount paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and the amount due plaintiff under a contract whereby the plaintiff manufactured overcoats for the United States Army.
On June 28, 1946, the plaintiff and the defendant, acting through its Quartermaster Corps, War Department, entered into this contract by which the plaintiff agreed to manufacture and deliver to the defendant 30,000 overcoats, with removable liners, at a unit price of $19.25 for a total sum of $577,500 with monthly deliveries scheduled from February through December 1947.
In so far as applicable here, the contract provided in part as follows:
On November 27, 1946, at the request of defendant's contracting officer, the parties executed a supplementary agreement wherein the unit price was reduced to $18.50. This price revision was accomplished before any labor was commenced or work performed under the contract.
The plaintiff's entire operation under the contract was financed by the Union National Bank of Wichita, Kansas. As of late November and early December 1946, the plaintiff had loans from this bank which established a revolving line of credit in the total sum of $200,000 at 4 percent interest. Two separate loans were involved, each in the amount of $100,000 both of which were payable one year after date. To secure payment, the plaintiff gave its promissory notes and a chattel mortgage covering all of its machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures, and assigned its accounts receivable and all money due and to become due the plaintiff under its contract with the defendant, and further secured the bank by assignment of warehouse receipts on all of its raw materials and finished goods.
On June 4, 1947, the plaintiff was instructed by the defendant to submit to the contracting officer the cost data required to be furnished under paragraph (c) of the Revision of Price article, supra. On June 18, 1947, after the plaintiff had delivered 30 percent of the overcoats, it submitted to the defendant its schedules of experienced costs to May 31, 1947, a profit and loss statement and other pertinent data required as a preliminary to a demand under paragraph (b), to negotiate a price revision. The plaintiff accompanied this information with a proposal that the unit price of $18.50 remain unchanged for the balance of the contract quantity. Requests for further information in relation to its costs were made on the plaintiff by the defendant on July 7, August 4, and September 9, in 1947. The plaintiff supplied the information requested on those dates.
By letter of September 18, 1947, the contracting officer wrote to the plaintiff, in part, as follows:
The plaintiff supplied the information desired by this request on October 20, 1947, which included a schedule of its experienced costs through September 30, 1947. These figures continued to support the original contract price, as modified, of $18.50 per overcoat. On October 23, 1947, the plaintiff's secretary-treasurer went to New York to negotiate for a revision of the unit price. The plaintiff's agent failed to see the contracting officer but met with three of his representatives. His efforts to discuss the plaintiff's cost figures...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Garcia v. Department of Homeland Security
...because she was coerced into leaving the INS in Washington, D.C. due to intolerable working conditions. This court has adopted the so-called Fruhauf test for establishing involuntary coercion by an agency: [T]o establish involuntariness on the basis of coercion this court requires an employ......
-
Oasis Int'l Waters, Inc. v. United States
...at 1358; Employers Ins. of Wausau v. United States, 764 F.2d 1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Fruhauf Southwest Garment Co. v. United States, 111 F. Supp. 945, 126 Ct. Cl. 51, 62 (1953) ("[T]he requirements to establish duress are exacting. Three elements must be found: '(1) that one si......
-
Wall v. U.S.
...action was involuntarily extracted or coerced. The standards for determining duress are set forth in Fruhauf Southwest Garment Co. v. United States, 111 F.Supp. 945, 951 (1953), as follows:(1) that one side involuntarily accepted the terms of another;(2) that circumstances presented no othe......
-
Starr Int'l Co. v. United States
...no other alternative"; and (3) "said circumstances were the result of coercive acts of" the other party.21 Fruhauf Sw. Garment Co. v. United States, 126 Ct. Cl. 51, 62 (1953). A coercive act is one that is "wrongful," but need not be illegal. Rumsfeld v. Freedom NY, Inc., 329 F.3d 1320, 133......
-
CHAPTER 10 THE TAKE-OR-PAY WARS: A CAUTIONARY ANALYSIS FOR THE FUTURE
...1955) "Economic duress may not be implied merely from the making of a hard bargain."); Fruhauf Southwest Garment Co. v. United States, 111 F.Supp. 945, 951 (Ct. Cl. 1953)("In order to substantiate the allegation of economic duress...the plaintiff must go beyond the mere showing of a relucta......