Jonal Corp.

Court of Claims

Jonal Corp.

23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,107, 203 Ct. Cl. 738, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 102, 1974 WL 5612

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 4, 1974

DocketNo. 786-71

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,107 (Jonal Corp.) 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

Jonal Corp., 23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,107, 203 Ct. Cl. 738, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 102, 1974 WL 5612 (cc 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Contracts; interpretation; ambiguity; perfoivnance specifications. — Plaintiff unsuccessfully contended before the Board of Contract Appeals of tbe National Aeronautics and Space Administration that it had reasonably interpreted 'ambiguous specifications of its contract to build a sterilization and clean-up facility as not requiring it to furnish electric interlocks on six shower room doors, and was therefore entitled to the costs of complying with an order directing their installation. The Board held that the contract specifications required an electrical interlock system to produce the specified sequence of the opening and closing of the doors in the shower rooms; that the equipment necessary for the functioning of the system was required 'to be furnished by the contractor; and that the claimed ambiguity was such that the contractor should have raised its doubts before bidding. In a recommended decision, on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, filed April 3, 1973 (reported in full at 18 CCF para. 82150), Trial Judge Schwartz concluded that the Board was correct on all issues. This case came before the court on plaintiff’s request for review by the court of the recommended decision, and submitted on the briefs and oral argument of counsel. Since the court agrees with the recommended decision, the court by order dated January 4, 1974 approved and adopted the same as the basis for its judgment in this case, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition.

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

Contracts; interpretation; ambiguity; perfoivnance specifications. — Plaintiff unsuccessfully contended before the Board of Contract Appeals of tbe National Aeronautics and Space Administration that it had reasonably interpreted 'ambiguous specifications of its contract to build a sterilization and clean-up facility as not requiring it to furnish electric interlocks on six shower room doors, and was therefore entitled to the costs of complying with an order directing their installation. The Board held that the contract specifications required an electrical interlock system to produce the specified sequence of the opening and closing of the doors in the shower rooms; that the equipment necessary for the functioning of the system was required 'to be furnished by the contractor; and that the claimed ambiguity was such that the contractor should have raised its doubts before bidding. In a recommended decision, on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, filed April 3, 1973 (reported in full at 18 CCF para. 82150), Trial Judge Schwartz concluded that the Board was correct on all issues. This case came before the court on plaintiff’s request for review by the court of the recommended decision, and submitted on the briefs and oral argument of counsel. Since the court agrees with the recommended decision, the court by order dated January 4, 1974 approved and adopted the same as the basis for its judgment in this case, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,107, 203 Ct. Cl. 738, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 102, 1974 WL 5612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonal-corp-cc-1974.