Empire Engineering Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Empire Engineering Co. v. United States

59 Ct. Cl. 904, 1924 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 350, 1924 WL 2341

United States Court of Claims·Decided October 20, 1924·No. No. D-94·Published

Opinion

[906] MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The finding of the contracting officer that the delays were the result of unforeseeable causes arising through no fault of the contractor >vas within his powers under the contract, and bad faith upon the part of that officer does not appear. See Penn, Bridge Co. v. United States, No. D-93, this day decided, ante, p. 892.

[907] The reimbursement of the contracting officer by the plaintiff to the amount of the disallowance in the settlement of his accounts, with express reservation of the right to sue therefor in this court, does not preclude recovery.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $953.03.

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

[906] MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The finding of the contracting officer that the delays were the result of unforeseeable causes arising through no fault of the contractor >vas within his powers under the contract, and bad faith upon the part of that officer does not appear. See Penn, Bridge Co. v. United States, No. D-93, this day decided, ante, p. 892.

[907] The reimbursement of the contracting officer by the plaintiff to the amount of the disallowance in the settlement of his accounts, with express reservation of the right to sue therefor in this court, does not preclude recovery.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $953.03.

Empire Engineering Co. v. United States, 59 Ct. Cl. 904, 1924 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 350, 1924 WL 2341 (cc 1924).

Pincite

59 Ct. Cl. 904 (Empire Engineering Co. v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.