Manhattan Sponging Works v. United States

Court of Claims

Manhattan Sponging Works v. United States

61 Ct. Cl. 25, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 430, 1925 WL 2771

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 1, 1925

DocketNo. C-89

StatusPublished

This text of 61 Ct. Cl. 25 (Manhattan Sponging Works 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

Manhattan Sponging Works v. United States, 61 Ct. Cl. 25, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 430, 1925 WL 2771 (cc 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[27]*27MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT

The plaintiff claims several items as follows:

(1) Loss sustained on account of the Government’s failure to furnish a designated number of yards of goods; (2) the difference in prices based on the Philadelphia prices, as compared with the St. Louis prices; (8) insurance premiums expended; (4) amounts expended for machinery equipment, etc. The Government had no written contract with the plaintiff except an acceptance of certain prices which plaintiff had offered. There was at no time any agreement as to the amount of goods that was to be furnished nor was there any authority in any officer of the Government to bind them to any such arrangement if it had been made.

The prices were based upon the accepted proposal until some time in October, when they were changed to the Philadelphia basis, and from that time the prices paid the plaintiff were the Philadelphia prices. There was no agreement that these prices would be retroactive.

There was no agreement that the Government would pay for insurance nor was there any obligation on the Government to pay for machinery, equipment, or facilities.

We concur with the conclusion reached by the Board of Contract Adjustment. (See vol. 4, p. 1067.) The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Graham, Judge,

took no part in the decision of this case.

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

[27]*27MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT

The plaintiff claims several items as follows:

(1) Loss sustained on account of the Government’s failure to furnish a designated number of yards of goods; (2) the difference in prices based on the Philadelphia prices, as compared with the St. Louis prices; (8) insurance premiums expended; (4) amounts expended for machinery equipment, etc. The Government had no written contract with the plaintiff except an acceptance of certain prices which plaintiff had offered. There was at no time any agreement as to the amount of goods that was to be furnished nor was there any authority in any officer of the Government to bind them to any such arrangement if it had been made.

The prices were based upon the accepted proposal until some time in October, when they were changed to the Philadelphia basis, and from that time the prices paid the plaintiff were the Philadelphia prices. There was no agreement that these prices would be retroactive.

There was no agreement that the Government would pay for insurance nor was there any obligation on the Government to pay for machinery, equipment, or facilities.

We concur with the conclusion reached by the Board of Contract Adjustment. (See vol. 4, p. 1067.) The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Graham, Judge,

took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Ct. Cl. 25, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 430, 1925 WL 2771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-sponging-works-v-united-states-cc-1925.