Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States

150 F. Supp. 840, 138 Ct. Cl. 539, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 80
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 8, 1957
DocketCong. No. 10-52
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 F. Supp. 840 (Cooper Tire & Rubber 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
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 150 F. Supp. 840, 138 Ct. Cl. 539, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 80 (cc 1957).

Opinion

LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court pursuant to House Resolution 699 of the 82d Congress, 2d Session, July 1,1952, which provides as follows:

Resolved that the Bill (H. R. 8255) entitled “A Bill for the relief of the Cooper Tire & Rubber Company” now pending in the House of Representatives, is hereby referred to the United States Court of Claims pursuant to Sections 1492 and 2509 of Title 28 United States Code; and said court shall proceed expeditiously with the same in accordance with the provisions of such sections and report to the House, at the earliest practical date, giving such findings of fact and conclusions thereon as shall be [541]*541sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature and character of the demand, as a claim legal or equitable, against the United States, and the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States to the claimants: Provided, That it shall not be a defense on the part of the Government that the acts of the Government which are alleged to have damaged the claimant were done by the Government in its sovereign capacity.

The bill (H. E. 8255) referred to in the above resolution proposed to pay to the Cooper Tire and Eubber Company the sum of $1,811,333.38 in full satisfaction of all claims against the United States for losses suffered by the plaintiff under seven contracts entered into between the plaintiff and the United States. It is the duty of this court to determine whether or not, in view of the facts, the plaintiff has either a legal or equitable claim for which it should be compensated and, if so, in what amount.

Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio, where it is, and has been for many years, engaged in the manufacture of rubber tires,' tubes and other rubber products. Plaintiff employs between 900 and 1,000 persons.

During 1950, plaintiff, in response to invitations to bid issued by the Department of the Army, submitted bids and was awarded certain contracts for the manufacture of rubber tires, tubes and camelback (camelback being a rubber product used in recapping tires). It is with respect to seven contracts awarded during 1950 that plaintiff has sought relief. Five of the seven were awarded prior to the outbreak of the Korean hostilities on June 25, 1950, and the other two were awarded on June 30, 1950, and November 17, 1950, respectively. These seven contracts were of the fixed-price type and did not contain escalator clauses to protect against increased costs to the contractor. During the calendar years 1950, 1951, and 1952, in which deliveries were made upon the seven contracts which are the subject of this claim, the plaintiff was awarded 28 other contracts with the defendant. One of them was awarded April 7, 1950, and delivery thereon was completed June 14, 1950. This contract did not contain the escalator clause. The other 27 [542]*542contracts were issued during 1951 and 1952. All of them were fixed-price contracts, but each of them contained the escalator clause providing a price adjustment upward or downward on the basis of costs of production. The plaintiff made a small profit on deliveries under all Government contracts during the three-year period. Plaintiff contends, however, that only the seven contracts for which it has sought relief should be considered here and that on this basis it has suffered to the extent of $1,811,333.38 representing increased costs occasioned by the Korean War together with loss of profits.

There is no question that the losses sustained by the plaintiff on the seven contracts arose from the fact that the Korean War brought about an increase in the cost of material needed by the plaintiff to perform the rubber contracts. The only question is whether such loss results in a legal or equitable claim against the United States.

After the outbreak of the Korean War, the cost of labor, rayon, synthetic and natural rubber increased at an abnormal rate. The plaintiff had to have rayon converted into rayon cord to be used in the manufacture of its tires. The conversion was done for the plaintiff by the Dearing Milliken Company. From July 1950 to December 1950, the rayon fabric price increased from 54 cents a pound to 62 cents and the cost of cord conversion from 10% cents to 15 cents. During much of this period rayon fabric was in short supply and the defendant’s officials did what they could to find a supplier for the plaintiff even though there was no such obligation on the part of the defendant under the contract.

Wage increases were negotiated with the United Rubber Workers Union and approved throughout the rubber industry. On September 18,1950, union workers were granted an increase of five cents an hour. On November 6, 1950, an additional six cents was agreed upon and again on September 17,1951, they were given an additional twelve cents an hour. The increased cost to the plaintiff occasioned by the higher costs of rayon and its conversion into cord and the wage increases, are not separately determinable with respect to the seven contracts, which are the subject of this claim, but these [543]*543items did create substantial increased costs for the performance of the contracts.

Synthetic rubber during the period of plaintiff’s performance was purchased solely from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Office of Rubber Reserve. Prior to December 7, 1950, the price for the grade of synthetic rubber used by the plaintiff was 18% cents a pound. After December 7, 1950, the price was increased by the RFC to 24% cents a pound, and effective in September 1951 the price was further increased to 26 cents a pound. Higher costs of raw materials used in the synthesis of rubber and the necessity of overcoming uneconomical operations of synthetic rubber plants caused the RFC to raise the price of synthetic rubber. By applying the price increases of synthetic rubber to the quantities required and delivered to the plaintiff after December 6, 1950, for use in producing the rubber products called for in the seven contracts, the total increase thereof is found to be approximately $213,182.51.

The price of natural rubber began to increase on the market in the first half of 1950 due to the lack of enough natural rubber on the world market to supply the demand. General Services Administration bought on the market, in accordance with directives received from the Munitions Board, in order to complete United States stockpile objectives. Buying by GSA and private purchasers contributed to the increased price in the undersupplied rubber market.

Within six weeks following the outbreak of the Korean War the spot market price of natural rubber had increased from about 28 cents a pound to about 64 cents. In August 1950, a Presidential directive authorized the National Production Authority to impose controls upon the industry in order to limit the monthly quantities of rubber that manufacturers could consume. The limit authorized to each manufacturer or consumer was based upon a formula determined by the consumer’s base period consumption. GSA went into the market to acquire the balance of rubber available to the United States in the world market. By November 1950, the New York spot price for natural rubber had reached 91 cents a pound. On December 29, 1950, GSA became the exclusive importer and seller of crude natural [544]*544rubber in the United States.

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

Related

Paul v. United States
20 Cl. Ct. 236 (Court of Claims, 1990)
Commonwealth Engineering Co. of Ohio v. United States
180 F. Supp. 396 (Court of Claims, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 F. Supp. 840, 138 Ct. Cl. 539, 1957 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-tire-rubber-co-v-united-states-cc-1957.