The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Federal Roofing and Painting, Inc. v. Foster Construction (Panama) S.A.

Fifth Circuit

The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Federal Roofing and Painting, Inc. v. Foster Construction (Panama) S.A.

456 F.2d 250, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10913

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 6, 1972

Docket71-2369

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 F.2d 250 (The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Federal Roofing and Painting, Inc. v. Foster Construction (Panama) S.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Federal Roofing and Painting, Inc. v. Foster Construction (Panama) S.A., 456 F.2d 250, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10913 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In the district court Foster, the prime contractor, was held entitled to withhold from Federal, its subcontractor, provable overhead expenses incurred by Foster from project delay caused by Federal in excess of the amount of liquidated damages recovered by the Government against Foster. We affirm.

The amount of liquidated damages which the prime contract required be paid to the Government, as owner of the project, bears no absolute relationship to the amount of overhead expenses suffered by the prime contractor because of the subcontractor’s failure to timely perform its obligations under the subcontract. Therefore, this amount does not govern, as between the latter parties, unless such liquidated damage amount was adopted by the prime and subcontractor as the measure of damages for any breach of their agreement. While the subcontract contained a clause providing that “in general” the parties would assume the correlative positions of the parties in the prime contract, it also contained a specific proviso that payments due the subcontractor would be subject to offset for reasonable claims arising out of performance of the subcontract work. Accordingly, Foster is entitled to withhold from payment to its subcontractor Federal provable damages which it has incurred under the subcontract.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In the district court Foster, the prime contractor, was held entitled to withhold from Federal, its subcontractor, provable overhead expenses incurred by Foster from project delay caused by Federal in excess of the amount of liquidated damages recovered by the Government against Foster. We affirm.

The amount of liquidated damages which the prime contract required be paid to the Government, as owner of the project, bears no absolute relationship to the amount of overhead expenses suffered by the prime contractor because of the subcontractor’s failure to timely perform its obligations under the subcontract. Therefore, this amount does not govern, as between the latter parties, unless such liquidated damage amount was adopted by the prime and subcontractor as the measure of damages for any breach of their agreement. While the subcontract contained a clause providing that “in general” the parties would assume the correlative positions of the parties in the prime contract, it also contained a specific proviso that payments due the subcontractor would be subject to offset for reasonable claims arising out of performance of the subcontract work. Accordingly, Foster is entitled to withhold from payment to its subcontractor Federal provable damages which it has incurred under the subcontract.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 F.2d 250, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-united-states-of-america-for-the-use-and-benefit-of-federal-roofing-and-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack