United States v. Mason Hanger Co
Decision Date | 04 December 1922 |
Docket Number | No. 121,121 |
Citation | 43 S.Ct. 128,67 L.Ed. 286,260 U.S. 323 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. MASON & HANGER CO. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City, for the United States.
Mr. Geo. A. King, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims which awards the appellee, plaintiff in the Court of Claims, the sum of $12,064.52, composed of three sums, which are respectively of the amounts of $2,500, $450, and $9,114.52. The last two sums the United States does not contest. The sum of $2,500 is only, therefore, in question. The amount is charged to be due (as the other sums were) upon what are called 'cost plus contracts' for the construction of certain buildings at Camp Zachary Taylor, near Louisville, Kentucky.
It is provided in article II of the contract that * * *'
The United States contends that within the meaning of article II the premium paid on a bond of $250,000 that being the amount fixed by the War Department, was not an expenditure in the performance of the work. The Court of Claims decided the contrary and supported its decision by the action and approval of the War Department. And there was no hesitation on the part of the department. It recognized the obligation of the government under the contract to pay to the contractor the amount of premium, and negotiated with the surety companies for a reduction of it in the interest of the government. The premium was approved by the contracting officer as required by article II and paid as part of the cost of the work and was not questioned for over two years. Its amount was later deducted from other sums due the contractor.
What is the import of this practical interpretation? The government does not contend that the words of the contract were dictated by statute. They are, therefore, the words of the contracting officer to express and provide for the purpose of the government in exercise of the duty with which he was charged, and used as a declaration and measure of the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. His subsequent conduct is necessarily to be considered a definition of them. The officer in a sense is a party to the contract, not only representing but speaking for the impersonality of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCullough v. Clinch-Mitchell Const. Co.
...courts." The validity of such contract provisions has been steadily supported in the Supreme Court United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 260 U. S. 323, 326, 43 S. Ct. 128, 67 L. Ed. 286; Plumley v. United States, 226 U. S. 545, 548, 33 S. Ct. 139, 57 L. Ed. 342; Ripley v. United States, 223 ......
-
31 658 Contractors, Inc v. United States 8212 88
...if a settlement satisfactory to the contractor could be reached at that level, no review would lie.6 See United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 260 U.S. 323, 43 S.Ct. 128, 67 L.Ed. 286; United States v. Corliss Steam-Engine Co., 91 U.S. 321, 23 L.Ed. By the disputes clause7 the decision of th......
-
State Highway Dept. v. MacDougald Const. Co.
... ... 299, 138 A. 824, 54 A.L.R. 1252, ... decisions by the United States Supreme Court and courts of 26 ... States are listed as ... 536, 46 S.Ct. 613, 70 L.Ed. 1074; United ... States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 260 U.S. 323, 43 S.Ct. 128, 67 ... L.Ed. 286; Dock ... ...
-
S&E Contractors, Inc. v. United States
...to render that decision had been given to the contracting officer by the terms of the contract. United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 260 U.S. 323, 43 S.Ct. 128, 67 L.Ed. 286 (1922). Perhaps the most quoted language relating to the powers of the GAO in these matters is found in the district ......