United States v. United Engineering Constructing Company
| Decision Date | 08 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 381,381 |
| Citation | 34 S.Ct. 843,234 U.S. 236,58 L.Ed. 1294 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Appt., v. UNITED ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTING COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney General Thompson and Mr. P. M. Ashford for appellant.
Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, John S. Flannery, and William Hitz for appellee.
Suit was brought in the court of claims by the United Engineering & Contracting Company to recover of the United States upon a contract, dated the 15th of September, 1900, for the construction within seven calendar months from the date of the contract, namely, by April 15, 1901, of a pumping plant for Dry Dock No. 3 at the New York Navy Yards, the work to be done in accordance with certain plans and specifications annexed to and forming a part of the contract. The claimant recovered a judgment (47 Ct. Cl. 489), and the United States brings this appeal.
The principal question in the case involves the correctness of that part of the judgment of the court of claims which permitted the claimant to recover $6,000, which the government had deducted as liquidated damages for 240 days' delay in the completion of the work, at the rate of $25 per day. To understand this question the terms of the contract and certain facts found by the court of claims, upon which the case is to be considered here, must be had in view.
The claimant commenced the construction of the work in accordance with the contract, and after a portion thereof had been done the Navy Department concluded to connect Dry Dock No. 2 with Dry Dock No. 3, and to build a single pumping plant for both docks. To that end, on July 21 1901, a supplemental contract was entered into with the United States, whereby the claimant agreed, for an additional sum, to furnish all the material and labor necessary to carry out the changes in and additions to the plant originally contracted for, and to complete the work on or before October 15, 1901, to which date the original contract was extended.
While the work was progressing under the original and supplemental contracts, a controversy arose between the claimant and the civil engineer in charge as to the proper method of designing and constructing the floor of the pump well, and as to the correct interpretation of the requirements of the specifications concerning other matters, which resulted in considerable delay and the cessation of work without the fault of the claimant. On January 13, 1903, the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks appointed a board to consider changes in the bottom of the pump well, and the compensation to be paid therefor, of which the claimant was advised by letter, and it was informed that it would be expected to immediately resume work under its contract, and push the same to completion with utmost despatch, otherwise the Bureau would annul the contract and take over the entire work. The claimant thereupon promised to push the work to completion as rapidly as possible, with which promise the Bureau appears to have been satisfied.
On February 15, 1903, after the date fixed for the completion of the work under the original and supplemental contracts, a second supplemental contract was entered into, whereby the claimant agreed to construct three hatches in the roof of the pump well for additional compensation. Nothing was said in this contract as to the time of completion, or as to delays under prior contracts.
The board of officers appointed to consider the design of the floor of the pump well and other matters in controversy reported February 16, 1903, that there were, as conceded by the Bureau, errors in the design of the pump well floor; that the work done and materials furnished by the claimant complied with the specifications, and that it was not chargeable with improper work or procedure, and the board estimated the increased compensation for the new work, and made certain allowances to the claimant. On March 7, 1903, a third supplemental contract was entered into, which embodied the changes found necessary in the original plan for the construction of the floor of the pump well, and the increased compensation to claimant therefor. Nothing was said in this contract as to the date of the completion of the work theretofore contracted for, nor as to prior delays.
The claimant proceeded under the contracts with reasonable despatch and without delay on its part until May 1, 1903, when the work was ready for the installation of the machinery. Up to this date the claimant was delayed by the government in making changes and alterations in the work, and in the use of the docks for docking vessels while the work was going forward. No delays were chargeable to the claimant up to October 15, 1901, the time fixed for the completion of the work, nor thereafter to May 1, 1903. During this period, due to the delays of the government, the claimant incurred additional expenses for superintendence and maintenance. During the period from May 1, 1903, to April 21, 1904, the work was delayed by the claimant's subcontractors in not getting the pump castings in place, for which the government was not responsible. The claimant was also delayed for a few days during said period by the government while using the docks for docking vessels.
At the request of the Bureau a civil engineer made a review of the matter of delays, and in February, 1905, reported that, notwithstanding the increased work required by the supplemental agreements and the restrictions placed upon the work, the claimant was up to time on its contracts to May 1, 1903, but that subsequent to that date, and up to April 21, 1904, it had taken seven calendar months' more time than was necessary. After the plant was completed a board was appointed to pass upon it, which recommended certain deductions from the contract price for failure to strictly comply with the specifications. On March 24, 1905, the civil engineer in charge transmitted to the claimant a supplemental agreement covering the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northwestern Terra Cotta Co. v. Caldwell
... ... v. CALDWELL et al. No. 4521. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. June 19, ... Deposit Company of Maryland as surety which provided: ... See United States v ... United Engineering Co., 234 U.S. 236, 34 Sup.Ct. 843, 58 ... L.Ed ... ...
-
Ikeoka v. Kong
...243; Peet v. Sherwood, 43 Minn. 447, 45 N.W. 859; Cheatham v. Yarbrough, 90 Tenn. 77, 15 S.W. 1076; United States v. United Engineering Co., 234 U.S. 236, 34 S.Ct. 843, 58 L.Ed. 1294. '* * * [N]o one can avail himself of the non-performance of a condition precedent, who has himself occasion......
-
Gillioz v. State Highway Com'n
... ... 429; Standard Steel Car Co. v ... United States, 67 Court of Claims, 445; Carroll v ... States v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 58 L.Ed ... 1294, 234 U.S ... sublet a contract to the Builders Steel Company for ... preparing all shop drawings. The first ... ...
-
Sandy Hites Co. v. State Highway Com'n
... 149 S.W.2d 828 347 Mo. 954 Sandy Hites Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State Highway ... Philadelphia, 192 A. 133; ... United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 63 L.Ed ... United ... States v. United Engineering & Contracting Co., 234 U.S ... 236, 58 L.Ed ... ...
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...342 U.S. 98, 99 (1951). 72. Id. at 100. 73. Id. 74. 41 U.S.C. § 7107(b) (2011). 75. United States v. United Eng’g & Constr. Co., 234 U.S. 236 (1914). 76. Id. at 241. 77. Id. at 242–44. 78. 261 U.S. 486 (1923). 79. Id. at 488. 80. United States v. Brooks-Callaway Co., 318 U.S. 120 (1943). 81......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.12 • LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
...owner-caused delay, actual damages may nevertheless be awarded to an owner. See, e.g., United States v. United Eng'g & Contracting Co., 234 U.S. 236, 241 (1914).[80] See, e.g., Keith v. Burzynski, 621 P.2d 247 (Wyo. 1980); Quin Blair Enters. v. Julien Constr. Co., 597 P.2d 945 (Wyo. 1979) (......