Home/Court of Claims/Air Terminal Services, Inc. v. The United States

Air Terminal Services, Inc. v. The United States

330 F.2d 974, 165 Ct. Cl. 525, 1964 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 88
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedApril 17, 1964
Docket437-59
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 330 F.2d 974 (Air Terminal Services, Inc. v. The United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Air Terminal Services, Inc. v. The United States, 330 F.2d 974, 165 Ct. Cl. 525, 1964 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 88 (cc 1964).

Opinions

DURFEE, Judge.

Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the operation of concessions at various airports, entered into a contract on October 6,1957 with defendant, by which plaintiff was granted a concession to operate an automobile parking business at the Washington National Airport. This airport was operated by defendant through its agency, the Civil Aeronautics Administration.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover damages alleging that defendant breached the contract by installing, without plaintiff’s consent, a number of parking meters on streets of the airport; thereby breaching an implied warranty not to substantially alter the pre-existing factual basis under which plaintiff entered into the contract.

[975]*975Defendant’s Invitation to Bid stated in part:

“ * •» * ipim government will furnish to the concessionaire the ground space known as Areas 1, 6, 7, 8 and Official, as shown on Exhibit No. 1 attached to the Form of Agreement.”

Exhibit No. 1 was a map of the airport showing, among other things, the specific location of the numbered and described parking areas, and also the location of certain employee parking areas. At this time Areas 1, 6, 7 and 8 were the only parking places (other than 62 metered spaces) that were available to the general public for the parking of automobiles.

The aforesaid invitation was accompanied by a “Data Sheet,” a copy of the proposed agreement, and a form upon which to submit proposals. The Data Sheet read as follows:

tJw31ZT0dAJYEwTS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coast-To-Coast Financial Corp. v. United States
52 Fed. Cl. 352 (Federal Claims, 2002)
Local America Bank v. United States
52 Fed. Cl. 184 (Federal Claims, 2002)
Centex Corp. v. United States
49 Fed. Cl. 691 (Federal Claims, 2001)
Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States
31 Fed. Cl. 25 (Federal Claims, 1994)
Winstar Corp. v. United States
25 Cl. Ct. 541 (Court of Claims, 1992)
Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v. United States
37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,307 (Court of Claims, 1992)
American Satellite Co. v. United States
36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,884 (Court of Claims, 1990)
Fern v. United States
15 Cl. Ct. 580 (Court of Claims, 1988)
Rogers Truck Line, Inc. v. United States
14 Cl. Ct. 108 (Court of Claims, 1987)
Peter v. United States
6 Cl. Ct. 768 (Court of Claims, 1984)
Juda v. United States
6 Cl. Ct. 441 (Court of Claims, 1984)
Yachts America, Inc. v. United States
31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,576 (Court of Claims, 1983)
South Louisiana Grain Services, Inc. v. United States
30 Cont. Cas. Fed. 70,493 (Court of Claims, 1982)
Coastal States Petrochemical Co. v. United States
559 F.2d 1 (Court of Claims, 1977)
Glasgow Associates v. United States
495 F.2d 765 (Court of Claims, 1974)
National Bank of North America v. United States
456 F.2d 754 (Court of Claims, 1972)
Reynolds Metals Company v. The United States
438 F.2d 983 (Court of Claims, 1971)
J. A. Jones Construction Company v. The United States
390 F.2d 886 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Wunderlich Contracting Company v. United States
351 F.2d 956 (D.C. Circuit, 1965)
Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States
351 F.2d 956 (Court of Claims, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
330 F.2d 974, 165 Ct. Cl. 525, 1964 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/air-terminal-services-inc-v-the-united-states-cc-1964.