Ravenna Arsenal, Inc.

Court of Claims

Ravenna Arsenal, Inc.

546 F.2d 431, 22 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,126, 211 Ct. Cl. 367, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 203

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 28, 1976

DocketNo. 137-74

StatusPublished

This text of 546 F.2d 431 (Ravenna Arsenal, Inc.) 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

Ravenna Arsenal, Inc., 546 F.2d 431, 22 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,126, 211 Ct. Cl. 367, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 203 (cc 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Contracts; changes; constructive change. — Plaintiff seeks Wunderlich Act review of a denial of its claim by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (74-1 BCA pára.10375) for additional compensation for reworking of 130,000 155mm shells directed by defendant. Plaintiff claims that the specification was changed by the practice of the parties — or by acquiescence of defendant in the practice of plaintiff alone— of measuring cracks in the shells at their narrowest width; and also claims that defendant’s insistence upon or resurrection or reimposition of the contract standard was a constructive change. The Board held that both parties had used [368]*368only the standard of the contract — that measurement of cracks take place at their widest width. On March 8, 1976 Trial Judge David Schwartz filed a recommended opinion (reported in full at 22 CCF para. 80126) upholding the decision of the Board. On October 28,1976 the court, by order, adopted the recommended decision as the basis for its judgment in this case, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross-motion, and dismissed the petition.

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

Contracts; changes; constructive change. — Plaintiff seeks Wunderlich Act review of a denial of its claim by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (74-1 BCA pára.10375) for additional compensation for reworking of 130,000 155mm shells directed by defendant. Plaintiff claims that the specification was changed by the practice of the parties — or by acquiescence of defendant in the practice of plaintiff alone— of measuring cracks in the shells at their narrowest width; and also claims that defendant’s insistence upon or resurrection or reimposition of the contract standard was a constructive change. The Board held that both parties had used [368]*368only the standard of the contract — that measurement of cracks take place at their widest width. On March 8, 1976 Trial Judge David Schwartz filed a recommended opinion (reported in full at 22 CCF para. 80126) upholding the decision of the Board. On October 28,1976 the court, by order, adopted the recommended decision as the basis for its judgment in this case, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross-motion, and dismissed the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F.2d 431, 22 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,126, 211 Ct. Cl. 367, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ravenna-arsenal-inc-cc-1976.