Companhia Atlântica de Desenvolvimento e Exploração de Minas v. United States

180 F. Supp. 342, 148 Ct. Cl. 71, 1960 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 50
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 20, 1960
DocketNo. 22-53
StatusPublished

This text of 180 F. Supp. 342 (Companhia Atlântica de Desenvolvimento e Exploração de Minas 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
Companhia Atlântica de Desenvolvimento e Exploração de Minas v. United States, 180 F. Supp. 342, 148 Ct. Cl. 71, 1960 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 50 (cc 1960).

Opinion

Madden, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, a Portuguese corporation, sues the United States for breach of contract. Under the reciprocity provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2502 it has access to this court. The contract in suit was • made on September 11, 1952. On October 27 of that year the United States purported to cancel [73]*73the contract. The plaintiff says that the purported cancellation was nothing more than a repudiation, and therefore a breach, of a valid contract.

The contract in question was for the sale of tungsten by the plaintiff to the United States, the tungsten to be delivered over a period of 34 months. The Government says that it had the right to cancel the contract, by reason of a reservation in the contract of the right to do so upon the occurrence of a certain contingency, which contingency, it says, occurred, and also by reason of a breach by the plaintiff of a warranty, contained in the contract, against contingent fees. It also says that the plaintiff would not have been able to perform the contract, if it had not been canceled, and therefore was not damaged by not being permitted to attempt to perform it.

We have made voluminous findings of fact, which coincide with the findings made by the commissioner of this court. There were numerous witnesses, and the veracity or the proper interpretation of the testimony of some of them is questioned. The conclusion of the commissioner who heard the testimony and observed the witnesses is entitled to great weight. We shall, in this opinion, narrate the events only to the extent we deem necessary to make our discussion intelligible.

The United States desired to obtain tungsten for American industry and for stockpiling. There were many tungsten mines in Portugal, poorly equipped mechanically. A good deal of tungsten was mined by individuals, with picks and shovels, who then marketed their product through dealers. In spite of its inefficiency, the industry prospered during World War II, but when the demand slackened after the war, there was little production by the smaller mining companies even though prices were still high in comparison to what they had been before the war.

A Portuguese enterpriser, Dr. Soares, began in 1950 to work on a plan, later developed by the plaintiff corporation, which envisaged the organization of production and marketing in such a way that there could be profitable operation of mines which otherwise would not operate. To do this it would be necessary to bring together a number of the small [74]*74mining enterprisers under one management, and to obtain long-term contracts for the sale of the tungsten which the combined operation would produce.

'An American, Mr. Pulvermann, who had had extensive experience in mine management in Germany before the war, was in Portugal in 1951 to examine a manganese mine. It did not interest him, but he looked into the possibilities of mining tungsten and came to the same conclusion which Dr. Soares had previously reached. He learned of Dr. Soares’ interest and discussed the problem with him for several days. Dr. Soares gave him a 60-day option for the placement in the United States or in Europe of a contract for the sale of specified tonnages of tungsten and tin.

Mr. Pulvermann went to Washington and began to explore the possibilities of selling tungsten to the Government. He discusséd the subject with Colonel Westbrook, with whom he had been associated in prior activities. Pulvermann and Westbrook, after investigation, decided that there was a possibility of getting a contract from the Government for the purchase of tungsten from the plaintiff. They considered the legal arrangement which Dr. Soares’ company should make for the acquisition of the tungsten which it proposed to sell, and the arrangement which they, Pulvermann and Westbrook, should make for their compensation if the venture should succeed.

Pulvermann returned to Portugal. At his suggestion Dr. Soares persuaded several high Portuguese officials to become officers of his company.

Pulvermann and Westbrook began negotiations with United States Government officials for a contract to purchase tungsten from the plaintiff. The negotiations went on from July 1951 to September 11, 1952, when the contract here in suit was signed. Formidable opposition to the contract was offered by American representatives in France, Portugal and England. The character of Dr. Soares and his associates was questioned and investigated. The price tentatively agreed on was greatly reduced at a relatively late period in the negotiations. In April of 1952 the Government sent Mr. Lynton, an engineer selected for his competence in that field, to examine the mines from which the plaintiff expected [75]*75to obtain its tungsten. Lynton made a long report, in which he concluded that the plaintiff company could obtain the tungsten to fulfill its proposed contract. He recommended that the contract be entered into. As we have said, the contract in question was finally signed on September 11, 1952.

On October 24, an American official in London, General Wilson, telephoned Mr. Larson, the official who had signed the contract on behalf of the Government and advised him that there were “very strong protests” from the American Embassy in Lisbon about the contract, and that the Embassy had informed him of definite attempts on the part of' the plaintiff to purchase tungsten from sources other than sources from which the plaintiff, under its contract, was; permitted to obtain tungsten. Larson asked Wilson to forward to him any “concrete evidence” which he had relating to the latter point. Wilson on the same day sent to Larson a message stating that another company, Pennsalt, had cabled that the plaintiff was offering to buy 100 tons of tungsten from it, Pennsalt, for resale to the United States. Wilson’s message reached Larson on the next working day,. October 27. Larson regarded the Pennsalt cable as “concrete evidence” of violation of its contract by the plaintiff,, and forthwith canceled the contract, so advising the plaintiff in a letter stating that the reason for the cancellation, was the plaintiff’s attempt to buy tungsten in the open-market for delivery under the contract.

At the trial of this case the Government made no effort, to prove that the plaintiff had, in fact, attempted to buy tungsten in the open market to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The stated ground for the cancellation was-therefore nonexistent. The Government argues that Mr. Larson had reason to believe that the stated ground existed. Whether he did or not is irrelevant. One may not repudiate-his contract obligations upon the ground that he reasonably,, though mistakenly, believed that the other party to the contract had breached it.

As we have said, the Government seeks to justify its cancellation of the contract on grounds other than the ground, stated at the time of the cancellation. One of these is that-[76]*76the plaintiff would not have been able to perform the contract and that therefore the contract was a futile writing, -the repudiation of which by the Government could not have Tiarmed the plaintiff.

The ability of the plaintiff to perform the contract was the subject of discussion and investigation during the more than a year’s time of negotiation of the contract.

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

Related

United States v. Burton Coal Co.
273 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court, 1927)
United States v. Burton Coal Co.
63 Ct. Cl. 678 (Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 F. Supp. 342, 148 Ct. Cl. 71, 1960 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/companhia-atlantica-de-desenvolvimento-e-exploracao-de-minas-v-united-cc-1960.