Thomas Earle & Sons, Inc. v. United States

90 Ct. Cl. 308, 1940 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 123, 1940 WL 4066
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 8, 1940
DocketNo. 43042
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 Ct. Cl. 308 (Thomas Earle & Sons, Inc. 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
Thomas Earle & Sons, Inc. v. United States, 90 Ct. Cl. 308, 1940 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 123, 1940 WL 4066 (cc 1940).

Opinion

GreeN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff made a bid on a contract to perform certain work for the defendant. Its bid was accepted and under the specifications, after the contract had been duly approved, it was to commence work on receiving notice to proceed. Thereafter, the plaintiff inquired of defendant if there would be any objection to commencing the work prior to the approval of the contract and prior to the receipt of the [310]*310notice to proceed. The defendant advised the plaintiff that there would probably be no objection to such procedure on the understanding that the plaintiff would proceed at its own risk.

Thereupon the plaintiff began work on the contract and continued until the defendant instructed it to suspend because of a Stop Order on all new work. Afterwards the contract was approved and the plaintiff was notified to proceed. As a result of the plaintiff being stopped on the work which it had begun prior to the approval of the contract, the plaintiff incurred additional expense amounting to $1,146.15 which would not otherwise have been sustained. This action is begun by plaintiff to recover the amount of these expenses.

. The controversy in the case is over the effect of the defendant informing plaintiff that it could proceed with the work prior to the execution of the contract at “its own risk.”

We think these words should be construed in their usual and ordinary meaning which would be that if the plaintiff sustained any damage by reason of commencing work before any contract was made, it alone was to be responsible therefor.

Plaintiff’s petition must be dismissed and it is so ordered.

Williams, Judge; IattletoN, Judge; and' Whaley, Chief Justice, concur. Whitaker, 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

Related

Parish v. United States
98 F. Supp. 347 (Court of Claims, 1951)
Sachs v. United States
63 F. Supp. 59 (Court of Claims, 1945)
Harris Wrecking Co. v. United States
97 Ct. Cl. 407 (Court of Claims, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 Ct. Cl. 308, 1940 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 123, 1940 WL 4066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-earle-sons-inc-v-united-states-cc-1940.