Chris Berg, Inc. v. United States

404 F.2d 364, 186 Ct. Cl. 389
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedDecember 13, 1968
DocketNo. 15-65
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 404 F.2d 364 (Chris Berg, Inc. 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
Chris Berg, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.2d 364, 186 Ct. Cl. 389 (cc 1968).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This case was referred to Trial Commissioner W. Ney Evans witb directions to make findings of fact 'and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Rule 57(a). The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on December 19, 1967. Exceptions to the commissioner’s findings of fact were filed by plaintiff and exceptions to the commissioner’s findings of fact and recommendation for conclusion of law were filed by defendant. The case has been submitted to the court on oral argument of counsel and the briefs of the parties. Since the court agrees with the commissioner’s opinion, findings and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover and judgment is entered for plaintiff with the amount of recovery to be determined pursuant to Rule 47(c).

OPINION oe Commissioner

Evans, Commissioner:

Plaintiff undertook a contract with the Navy (acting for the Coast Guard) to build a loran (long-range aid to navigation) station on Marcus Island, a remote atoll in the far Pacific. The contract documents represented that Marcus Island was “* * * well outside the normal typhoon zone.” One damaging typhoon struck the island 3 weeks before the contract was signed, and four other [391]*391typhoons occurred within the ensuing 12 months of construction. Plaintiff applied to the contracting officer for relief from its extra costs and appealed his denial of the claim to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction over a claim founded on alleged misrepresentation. Plaintiff thereupon filed suit in this court.

On the basis of the findings of ultimate fact (Findings 8 and 9) it is my opinion that plaintiff is entitled to recover.

FINDINGS on Fact

1. (a) Sometime prior to 1961, the Department of Defense directed the United States Coast Guard to establish a system of loran (long-range aid to navigation) stations in the Far East. Marcus Island was selected as the site of one of the stations.

(b) Marcus Island is a small, isolated coral atoll in the Pacific, 3,200 miles west of Honolulu, 1,200 miles southeast of Tokyo, and 900 miles northeast of Guam. It is triangular in shape and has a land area of approximately 2 square miles. The elevation rises sharply to 20 feet above sea level and is thereafter essentially flat. The vegetation is sparse, consisting mainly of scaviola bushes, small palm trees, and a few dwarf papaya trees. There are no indigenous inhabitants.

(c) During 1961, a site survey of the Island was made by a Coast Guard team of officers and civilians, to assemble engineering and operational data. The Coast Guard officer responsible for the operational section of the site survey included therein data on weather conditions.

(d) Arrangements were made for the Navy to prepare the contract documents, call for bids, negotiate the contract, and supervise the construction.

2. (a) The contract documents, supplied for the preparation of bids, contained the following:

1.34.4 Climatology and Oceanography. — The following information was taken from the weather observation [392]*392station on Marcus Island, and represents the average conditions over the past ten (10) years:

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

Related

Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States
50 Fed. Cl. 35 (Federal Claims, 2001)
D.F.K. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
45 Fed. Cl. 280 (Federal Claims, 1999)
Scott Timber Co. v. United States
44 Fed. Cl. 170 (Federal Claims, 1999)
Dakota Tribal Industries v. United States
34 Fed. Cl. 295 (Federal Claims, 1995)
Morris v. United States
40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,832 (Federal Claims, 1995)
Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States
9 Cl. Ct. 503 (Court of Claims, 1986)
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority v. United States
231 Ct. Cl. 911 (Court of Claims, 1982)
Broad Avenue Laundry & Tailoring v. United States
681 F.2d 746 (Court of Claims, 1982)
Ordnance Research, Inc. v. United States
609 F.2d 462 (Court of Claims, 1979)
American Ship Building Co.
21 Cont. Cas. Fed. 84,081 (Court of Claims, 1975)
Aerojet-General Corp. v. United States
467 F.2d 1293 (Court of Claims, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
404 F.2d 364, 186 Ct. Cl. 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chris-berg-inc-v-united-states-cc-1968.