United States v. Callahan Walker Const Co
Decision Date | 09 November 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 65,65 |
Citation | 87 L.Ed. 49,63 S.Ct. 113,317 U.S. 56 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. CALLAHAN WALKER CONST. CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 317 U.S. 710, 63 mS.Ct. 203, 87 L.Ed. —-.
Messrs. Francis Biddle, Atty. Gen., and Richard S. Salant, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Robert A. Littleton, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
This case involves the meaning and application of the terms of a standard form of Government construction contract.
The findings of the Court of Claims may be summarized. In 1931 the War Department asked bids for the construction of a levee on the east side of the Mississippi River. The respondent bid 14.43¢ a cubic yard on a section of the work involving approximately 3,881,600 cubic yards of earthwork. A paragraph of the specifications reserved the right to make such changes in the work contemplated as might be necessary or expedient to carry out the intent of the contract or to meet unanticipated conditions, but added that no such modification would be the basis for a claim for extra compensation except as provided in the regular form of contract to be entered into between the parties.
The respondent began construction at the south end of the project and proceeded northward. The length of the proposed levee was divided by stations one hundred feet apart and numbered from north to south. Sixty-eight per cent. of the construction between Station 5123 and Station 5113 had been completed when portions of the levee already constructed south of Station 5123 were found to have a tendency to subside. For this reason the Government contracting officer, on October 7, 1932, ordered the work stopped between the two stations while he sought to determine the cause of the subsidence. He concluded that the placing of an enlarged false berm, not called for in the original specifications, would prevent subsidence in the sector between the two stations. On October 18th he gave respondent a written order to construct such a berm; the order stated that respondent would be given one hundred per cent. credit for the earth placed south of Station 5123 where the subsidence had occurred and that payment for additional yardage required by the false berm would be made at the contract price per cubic yard. The additional yardage involved was about 64,000 cubic yards. The work covered by the change order was necessary for the completion of the project. The order was issued against the respondent's protest that an extra price should be allowed as the additional work would cost the respondent more than 14.43¢ per cubic yard, and that the order was not within the terms of the contract. The respondent asserted it would later present a claim for extra cost occasioned it by the additional work.
Article 3 of the standard form of construction contract signed by the parties provides:
Article 15 provides:
The respondent did not appeal from the order of the contracting officer to the head of the department concerned. After completion of the work, the acceptance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crown Coat Front Co v. United States
...66 S.Ct. 1003. See also United States v. Blair, 321 U.S. 730, 64 S.Ct. 820, 88 L.Ed. 1039 and United States v. Callahan Walker Co., 317 U.S. 56, 61, 63 S.Ct. 113, 115, 87 L.Ed. 49, where the disputes clause procedures are described as the 'only avenue for relief.' 2. Even when the contractu......
-
Tobin Quarries v. Central Nebraska Public P. & I. Dist., Civil Action No. 57.
...86 Ct. Cl. 665; Callahan Construction Co. v. United States, 91 Ct. Cl. 538. And see discussion in United States v. Callahan Walker Construction Co., 317 U.S. 56, 63 S.Ct. 113, 87 L.Ed. 49, though there the issue was clearly one of The court is satisfied, after a comprehensive study of the a......
-
Fett Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Seaboard Surety Co.
...to matters arising under the contract. United States v. Blair, supra, 321 U.S. 735, 64 S.Ct. 823; United States v. Callahan Walker Const. Co., 317 U.S. 56, 61, 63 S.Ct. 113, 115, 87 L.Ed. 49. And in the absence of some clear evidence that the appeal procedure is inadequate or unavailable, t......
-
Edwin J. Dobson, Jr., Inc. v. Rutgers, State University
...in the amount due under the contract or in the amount of time allowed for performance. See United States v. Callahan Walker Constr. Co., 317 U.S. 56, 58, 63 S.Ct. 113, 114, 87 L.Ed. 49, 51 (1942). In that case the contract is "equitably adjusted" and the contractor recompensed for additiona......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...notes 28–35. 66. See, e.g ., United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., 328 U.S. 234 (1946); United States v. Callahan Walker Constr. Co., 317 U.S. 56 (1942); Ripley v. United States, 223 U.S. 695 (1912); United States v. Gleason, 175 U.S. 588 (1900). 67. Gleason , 175 U.S. at 602. 68. United ......