Wood v. United States
| Decision Date | 27 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 100,100 |
| Citation | 66 L.Ed. 495,42 S.Ct. 209,258 U.S. 120 |
| Parties | WOOD et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. E. C. Brandenburg, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Ottinger, for the United States.
The Philadelphia Steam Heating Company made a contract with the United States, approved April 5, 1897, to furnish and install the boiler plant, heating system and other apparatus for the post office building at Washington, then under construction. The price fixed was $111,373; the time for completion 250 working days; with a forfeiture of $100 a day for each day's delay. The contract provided that for each day's delay 'in the execution of the work' caused 'through any fault' of the government one additional day was to be allowed for its completion; but 'that no claim shall be made or allowed for damages which may arise out of any delay caused by the' government. The right to make additions to or omissions from the work was reserved to the United States, allowance therefor to be determined by the supervising architect; and it was provided 'that no claim for damages on account of such changes or for anticipated profits shall be made or allowed.'
The work was entered upon promptly both at the factory in Philadelphia and at Washington. About a month thereafter the Secretary of the Treasury requested suspension of certain work, in view of contemplated changes, and notified the contractor that he would be entitled to 'one day additional for each day's delay caused by the government, as provided for by your contract.' Radical changes in plan were made. There was a suspension for 10 months of part of the work which had to be done in the building; and later another suspension was ordered. The whole work was not completed until 18 months after the expiration of the contract period. This delay was attributable mainly, if not wholly, to the government. To recover for the expenses and loss which resulted from this delay, as well as for extra work, this suit was brought in the Court of Claims. Judgment was entered for the value of the extra work; but the court, following its decision in Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. United States, 40 Ct. Cl. 117, denied recovery for damages due to the suspension.
The appeal to this court was taken before our decision in Wells Bros. Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 83, 41 Sup. Ct. 34, 65 L. Ed. 148. There the contract gave to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PYCA Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Management Dist.
...level. See United States ex rel. Straus Sys., Inc. v. Associated Indem. Co., 969 F.2d 83 (5th Cir.1992); cf. Wood v. United States, 258 U.S. 120, 42 S.Ct. 209, 66 L.Ed. 495 (1922) (holding that no-damages-for-delay clause barred contractors from recovering damages for delays caused by gover......
-
Housing Authority of City of Dallas v. Hubbell
...from these authorities: Wells Bros. Co. of New York v. United States, 254 U.S. 83, 41 S.Ct. 34, 65 L.Ed. 148; Wood v. United States, 258 U.S. 120, 42 S.Ct. 209, 66 L.Ed. 495; Hansen v. Covell, 218 Cal. 622, 24 P.2d 772, 89 A.L.R. 670; Underground Construction Co. v. Sanitary District of Chi......
-
Psaty & Fuhrman Inc. v. Hous. Auth. Of City Of Providence. Hous. Auth. Of City Of Providence
...The great weight of authority supports the view that we have expressed. Wells Bros. Co. v. United States, supra; Wood v. United States, 258 U.S. 120, 42 S.Ct. 209, 66 L.Ed. 495; Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. United States, 40 Ct.Cl. 117; Marsch v. Southern New England R. Co., 230 Mass. 483......
-
Authentic Apparel Grp., LLC v. United States
...of such an exculpatory clause with respect to the government's liability for delay damages. See Wood v. United States , 258 U.S. 120, 42 S.Ct. 209, 66 L.Ed. 495 (1922) ; see also Wells Bros. Co. v. United States , 254 U.S. 83, 41 S.Ct. 34, 65 L.Ed. 148 (1920). The Supreme Court has made cle......