Bethlehem Steel Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Bethlehem Steel Co. v. United States

41 Ct. Cl. 19, 1905 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 12, 1905 WL 919

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedDecember 4, 1905

DocketNo. 2628

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Ct. Cl. 19 (Bethlehem Steel Co. v. 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

Bethlehem Steel Co. v. United States, 41 Ct. Cl. 19, 1905 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 12, 1905 WL 919 (cc 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In view of the fact that the gun carriages to be manufactured by the claimant were not articles from which the defendants could obtain on their completion a valuable use or profit, such as might be derived from a house or a vessel; and in view of the fact that the deduction of $35 a day on each gun carriage during the period of delay would amount in a year to $12,775, or 35.48 per cent on the cost of each gun carriage; and in view of the fact that the parties in their correspondence and contract designated the above per diem as a penalty, the court does not feel justified in holding that it was mutually intended to be liquidated damages.

Under thé decision in The Phoenix Iron Company v. United States (39 C. Cls. R., 526) and the decisions therein cited, the judgment of the court is that the claimant recover $21,000.

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

Per Curiam:

In view of the fact that the gun carriages to be manufactured by the claimant were not articles from which the defendants could obtain on their completion a valuable use or profit, such as might be derived from a house or a vessel; and in view of the fact that the deduction of $35 a day on each gun carriage during the period of delay would amount in a year to $12,775, or 35.48 per cent on the cost of each gun carriage; and in view of the fact that the parties in their correspondence and contract designated the above per diem as a penalty, the court does not feel justified in holding that it was mutually intended to be liquidated damages.

Under thé decision in The Phoenix Iron Company v. United States (39 C. Cls. R., 526) and the decisions therein cited, the judgment of the court is that the claimant recover $21,000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Ct. Cl. 19, 1905 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 12, 1905 WL 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethlehem-steel-co-v-united-states-cc-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack