"ACCUMULATED PROFITS." See Taxes XXXVI.
ACT OF MARCH 9, 1933.
See Gold Bullion I, II, IV.
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.
I. Where plaintiff, a distiller, under the terms of a marketing agreement for the "Distilled Spirits Industry," to which marketing agreement plaintiff was a party, under the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, made payments to the Secretary of Agriculture repre- senting the difference between the price paid by plain- tiff for cereal grains or products thereof used by plaintiff in the manufacture of distilled spirits and the "parity" price of such grains or products; it is held that neither the terms of the act nor the provisions of the marketing agreement required the establishment of a trust fund for the benefit of plaintiff and associated distilleries, and no such trust fund was established in which plaintiff might claim an interest. Calvert Distilling Co., 517.
II. Payments made under the Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconditional. Id.
III. The establishment by the Treasury of a special account to which "parity" payments were credited was an accounting transaction indicating that that particular amount of money rather than that the particular dollars was to be used for a special purpose. Id.
IV. There was no implied contract in the marketing agree- ment which was in writing and was an express contract. Id.
BOARD OF GENERAL APPRAISERS.
See Import Duties I, II, IV.
CHANGED CONDITIONS.
See Contracts XXXVI.
CHANGES.
See Contracts XV.
CLAIM FOR REFUND.
See Taxes XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI.
CLAIM PREMATURELY FILED.
See Taxes I, II, III, IV, V, VI.
CONCEALMENT.
See Contracts III, VI. CONDITIONAL PERMIT.
See Tort I, II, III. CONSOLIDATED RETURN. See Taxes XV.
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.
See Taxes XLIV.
CONTRACTING OFFICER.
See Contracts XII, XIII, XIX, XX, XXI. CONTRACTS.
I. Where plaintiff, contractor, entered into a contract with defendant June 1929 to furnish all labor and materials and perform all work required for dredging Maumee River and Maumee Bay Channel, Lake Erie, in accord- ance with specifications, schedules, and drawings made part of the contract; and where the specifications stated that the contour of the channel was improved to 21 feet depth and 400 feet width in 1913-15, and that material to be removed was thought to be silt, clay, and sand but the bidders were to examine the work and decide for themselves as to its character and to make their bids accordingly, as the United States did not guarantee the accuracy of this description; and where the specifications further stated that the price per cubic yard covered the cost of removal and disposi- tion of all material encountered except ledge rock; it is held that there was no misrepresentation as to condi- tions on the part of the defendant and plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Central Dredging Co., 1.
II. Inconsistency in the specifications, if any, would have been resolved by the bidder examining the work and deciding for himself. Id.
III. Where certain drawings which the defendant furnished plaintiff on which to base its bid were not all the draw- ings which were in the possession of the defendant, it is held there was no attempted concealment by an officer of the Government in not furnishing said additional drawings. Id.
IV. Where the claim for subcontractor's loss is based on grounds presented to the contracting officer before the subcontractor entered into its contract with plaintiff and where it was well known to the plaintiff that the contracting officer and the Chief of Engineers both believed that the hard material which plaintiff had encountered was strictly within the terms of the con- tract; it is held that said claim is without merit. Id.
V. Where contractor had no reason not to expect that it would encounter in the site which it contracted to excavate whatever foundations, footings, or pillars may have been used to support the former brick build- ing on said site; and where contractor, though having an unusual opportunity to do so, made no effort to ascertain what foundations the former building had; and where contractor had agreed to take the site as it found it and to remove such material as it might find there; it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover for loss on account of additional costs incurred by reason of encountering more difficult conditions than it had expected. James Stewart & Co., 95.
VI. The evidence does not sustain the claim that there was either misrepresentation or concealment on the part of defendant. Id.
VII. Where plaintiff agreed, under purchase agreements with the United States, to deliver top soil to several parks and parkways in New York State at stipulated prices for delivery at stated locations; and where the major portion of top soil contracted for delivery to one location was diverted to other more distant locations; and where such diversions were made on oral orders of unauthorized persons and without written authority from authorized agents of the defendant; it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover. Walter C. Reediger, Inc., 120.
VIII. The contract fixed the rights and obligations of the parties and vested in the Government the right to have performance in accordance with its terms; and no unauthorized officer of the Government could waive the terms of the contract. Id.
IX. Where the diversions were not shown by the evidence adduced to have been authorized and were made without the knowledge or approval of the duly author- ized official; and where no agreement, express or implied, was made to make payment at a rate in excess of that stipulated in the contract; it is held there is no basis for a recovery on the theory of quantum meruit. Id.
X. Where the Government purchased from vendor coal, at an agreed price, for use in heating a post office; and where said coal was delivered and used; and where said vendor borrowed money at a bank, promising to repay the bank from proceeds of the sale of said coal; and where thereupon the Government refused to pay for
said coal on the ground that vendor had been "paid in full" by reason of said loan; it is held that plaintiff, executrix of vendor's estate, is entitled to recover. Belcher, 137.
XI. It is held that the evidence submitted, as a whole, shows that the defendant did not by any act, conduct or ruling of its agents, inspectors or engineers breach any provision of the contract with plaintiffs. Western Construction Co., 175.
XII. The evidence shows that the contracting officer acted reasonably and within the provisions of the contract in classifying the laborers obtained through the National Reemployment Service and employed by plaintiffs, and plaintiffs made no written protest or claim with respect thereto within the time required by the con- tract. Id.
XIII. Where on plaintiffs' claim for remission of liquidated damages the contracting officer denied all claims except a claim for 51 days' delay during high water and 1 day's delay on account of strikes; and where said decision of contracting officer was on appeal affirmed by the Sec- retary of the Interior; it is held that such decisions were in accord with the facts in the case and were not arbi- trary or grossly erroneous, and plaintiffs are entitled to recover only the sum allowed by said decisions. Id. XIV. Where plaintiff failed to complete the contract for con- struction of an extension to the then existing heating plant and installation of a new steam distribution system at the Naval Ammunition Depot, Fort Mifflin, Pa., and said contract was thereupon terminated by the Govern- ment, it is held that the evidence adduced fails to sustain plaintiff's claim that delay or dilatory action by defend- ant's officers in the disposition of plaintiff's plans and drawings resulted in damage to plaintiff. Continental Contracting Company, 244.
XV. Where the contract provided that any change in the work or in the time for performance which resulted in any increase of cost estimated to exceed $500 should be submitted to a board provided for in such contract; it is held that the change order issued to plaintiff, not exceeding $500, was not within the jurisdiction of said board, and plaintiff is not entitled to recover. XVI. Where certain amounts were withheld from plaintiff on account of an alleged underpayment by plaintiff of its employees, it is held that it was incumbent on plaintiff
« ПретходнаНастави » |