Richard T. Green Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Richard T. Green Co. v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 895, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 448, 1925 WL 2723

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 1, 1925

DocketNo. C-22

StatusPublished

This text of 60 Ct. Cl. 895 (Richard T. Green Co. 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

Richard T. Green Co. v. United States, 60 Ct. Cl. 895, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 448, 1925 WL 2723 (cc 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[898]*898MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The ¡ffaintiff made certain changes in the work of repairing the steamer which were not called for by the officer in charge, and the facts show that the departure from the provisions of the contract in this regard, whereby the cost of the repairs was increased, was without the knowledge or consent of the inspector in charge, Captain Prout, or the contracting officer, Colonel Burgess, or any other officer authorized or directed by the Government, and that such additional repairs were not approved by any of them. The plaintiff would have discharged its full duty by making the repairs according to the contract and the directions of the inspector or officer in charge. If it chose to make other repairs, the Government is not liable for them. The defendant discharged its obligation by paying the plaintiff the contract price.

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

[898]*898MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The ¡ffaintiff made certain changes in the work of repairing the steamer which were not called for by the officer in charge, and the facts show that the departure from the provisions of the contract in this regard, whereby the cost of the repairs was increased, was without the knowledge or consent of the inspector in charge, Captain Prout, or the contracting officer, Colonel Burgess, or any other officer authorized or directed by the Government, and that such additional repairs were not approved by any of them. The plaintiff would have discharged its full duty by making the repairs according to the contract and the directions of the inspector or officer in charge. If it chose to make other repairs, the Government is not liable for them. The defendant discharged its obligation by paying the plaintiff the contract price.

Graham, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Ct. Cl. 895, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 448, 1925 WL 2723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-t-green-co-v-united-states-cc-1925.