Forest Box & Lumber Co. v. Fraser Brace Overseas Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Forest Box & Lumber Co. v. Fraser Brace Overseas Corp.

17 Misc. 2d 619, 184 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4271

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 19, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Misc. 2d 619 (Forest Box & Lumber Co. v. Fraser Brace Overseas Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forest Box & Lumber Co. v. Fraser Brace Overseas Corp., 17 Misc. 2d 619, 184 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Questions of interpretation of contract terms and specifications are not disputes as to questions of fact, and a determination by the United States Army contracting officer under a contract making his decisions on questions of fact binding on the parties is not binding on the plaintiff here, where such determination involved interpretation of written specifications. (U. S. Code, tit. 41, § 322; Pfotzer v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 390; Johnson Contr. Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 698.) Dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action on the ground that the contracting officer’s decision was binding was therefore improper.

The order insofar as it dismisses the first cause of action should be reversed and the motion and cross motion seeking summary judgment with respect thereto denied, with $10 costs to plaintiff.

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

Per Curiam.

Questions of interpretation of contract terms and specifications are not disputes as to questions of fact, and a determination by the United States Army contracting officer under a contract making his decisions on questions of fact binding on the parties is not binding on the plaintiff here, where such determination involved interpretation of written specifications. (U. S. Code, tit. 41, § 322; Pfotzer v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 390; Johnson Contr. Corp. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 698.) Dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action on the ground that the contracting officer’s decision was binding was therefore improper.

The order insofar as it dismisses the first cause of action should be reversed and the motion and cross motion seeking summary judgment with respect thereto denied, with $10 costs to plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Misc. 2d 619, 184 N.Y.S.2d 66, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forest-box-lumber-co-v-fraser-brace-overseas-corp-nyappterm-1959.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack