New Products Development Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | B-168616 |
| Parties | TO NEW PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. |
| Court | Comptroller General of the United States |
Miscellaneous--private property loss--bailment decision to new products development services, inc; sustaining settlement disallowing claim for loss of prototype muffler submitted to army engineers research and development center for testing. Where prototype equipment submitted for testing and evaluation was repacked in the original box and returned by parcel post after testing and rejection but was never received there is no obligation on part of government as bailee to pay claim for cost of making a new prototype. Record shows that government acted in reasonable and prudent manner in discharging obligation for return in absence of any special arrangement for return of property.
Your letter of December 3, 1969, requests review of settlement certificate dated November 18, 1969, which disallowed your claim for damages resulting from the alleged loss of a prototype muffler attachment which your client (hereinafter "new products") submitted to the United States army engineers research and development center at fort belvoir Virginia, for testing and evaluation.
The record indicates that, as a result of initiatives by an officer of new products, the army agreed to test and evaluate the prototype and forward the test results to your client. The background understanding (common to all such ARRANGEMENTS) was that in the event the product appeared promising, action to exploit it for the government's benefit might then be taken.
The record also indicates that your client understood that the item possibly would be tested to destruction with no consequent liability incurred by the army. (see letter of Mr Haskell sobol, managing director of new products, dated August 11, 1967, requesting "return of the data submitted herewith as well as model (if not destroyed) * * *.")
The prototype was forwarded to fort belvoir by means of registered mail and was received at the installation on August 18, 1967. Testing was subsequently performed and the results sent to Mr. Sobol by letter dated October 31, 1967 wherein he was informed that the tests results were negative and that the muffler would not be further considered for army USE. The letter of rejection noted also that the prototype had been partially destroyed during the tests but that the portion remaining intact would be returned. The army following its customary practice, repacked the item in the same box in which it had been received, and forwarded it by parcel post to the attention of Mr. Sobol at new products on November 8, 1967.
Apparently the parcel was never received by your client, for you subsequently presented a claim for $1, 650, alleging that amount to be the cost of making a new prototype.
The facts concerning the testing arrangement were considered by our claims division to have created a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailor, in which case liability for loss could be imposed on the army only in the event it had been shown to have acted in bad faith or to have been grossly negligent. Since the record contained no evidence of bad faith or gross negligence on the part of the army, the claim, as stated above, was disallowed.
In making request for reconsideration of your claim you state it to be your view that the legal relationship created under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial