Waxman v. United States

112 F. Supp. 570, 125 Ct. Cl. 464, 1953 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 175
United States Court of Claims·Decided June 24, 1953·No. Nos. 48766 and 48859·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

OPINION

Howell, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The cause of action before the court for determination is common to three separate suits which were accordingly consolidated for trial.1 Plaintiffs have brought their actions [468] under tbe War Contract Hardship Claims Act,2 also known as the Lucas Act, for an equitable determination praying for relief from alleged losses suffered in the performance of contracts entered into by Acme with the United States. The Contracts were entered into and performed, and the alleged losses sustained, between September 16, 1940 and August 14,1945. Defendant has raised a number of contentions in support of its position that neither of the plaintiffs are entitled to recover, and has filed a counterclaim against Samuel Waxman in Cause No. 48761, for taxes assessed and unpaid in the amount of $11,194.12 (see Finding 28).

The facts underlying Acme’s claim will be stated briefly. Samuel Waxman is an elderly man who started his working career as a blacksmith. In 1917 he established himself as a manufacturer of small iron products under the name of “Acme Iron Works” in Eoxbury, Massachusetts. In 1942 he entered into an informal partnership arrangement with his three sons, Louis, Saul and Harry. In 1948 Acme Iron Works, by Samuel Waxman, entered into the first of a series of purchase order contracts and subcontracts for the United States Maritime Commission under which Acme was to fabricate oil storage and settling tanks to be installed in pairs on ships. Acme furnished materials and labor in accordance with the contract specifications. The first of the purchase orders was executed about May 1, 1948, and the last on June 29, 1945. After fabrication, the tanks were shipped on Government bills of lading to the Bethlehem-Fairchild Shipyard, Baltimore, Maryland; California Shipbuilding Company, Terminal Island, California, and Permanente Metals, Portland, Oregon.

Throughout the performance of the tank fabrication contracts, Acme encountered one misfortune after another, none of which were due to fault or negligence on Acme’s part nor, on the other hand were Acme’s troubles due to any breach of contract on the part of the Government. Difficulty of securing adequate skilled labor, rising costs of labor and materials, unanticipated repairs to completed tanks, and high interest rates on borrowed working capital resulted in [469] Acme’s costs exceeding its receipts under the contracts. From time to time Acme called the Government’s attention to its difficulties and it appears that Acme did make the required requests for extra legal relief within the meaning of the Lucas Act during the statutory period. On June 29, 1945, Acme filed with the Maritime Commission a written request for relief in the way of additional compensation on account of losses resulting from all the above causes, but no final action had been taken on such request when Acme’s contracts were terminated on August 14,1945 at the end of the war. On February 7, 1947, Acme submitted to the Maritime Commission a written claim for relief under the Lucas Act which was denied by the Commission on February 2,1948. On February 24,1948, the Commission affirmed its denial of Acme’s claim, whereupon the present petitions were timely filed in this court for determination of the amount, if any, to which Acme or its assignee, Atlantic Corporation, was equitably entitled to recover under the Lucas Act.3

Alleged Non-Gompliance by Acme With Requirements of Section # (a) of the Lucas Act and With Executive Order 9786, Paragraphs 805 and W2 (b) (c) (g) (i) (j) (h) (m) and (n)

Defendant contends first that plaintiffs may not recover because they have failed to show Acme’s net receipts or net costs, and consequently its net losses on all its government contracts performed during the statutory period. Defendant points out that Section 6 of the Lucas Act provides that this court shall have jurisdiction “to determine the amount, if any, to which such claimant or petitioner may be equitably entitled (not exceeding the amount which might have been allowed by the Department or Agency concerned under the terms of this Act),” and that Section 2 (a) provides that in arriving at a fair and equitable settlement of claims under the Act “the respective Departments and Agencies shall not allow any amount in excess of the amount of the net loss [470] (less the amount of any relief granted subsequent to the establishment of such loss) on all contracts and subcontracts held by a claimant under which work, supplies, or services were furnished for the Government between September 16, 1940 and August 1’4,1945, * * Paragraph 305 of Executive Order 9786 provides as follows:

No claimant shall be granted relief under the Act and these Regulations in any amount in excess of the amount of the net loss (less the amount of any relief granted subsequent to the establishment of such loss) on all contracts and subcontracts held by the claimant pursuant to which work, supplies, or services were furnished for the Government during the statutory period.

Paragraph 305 is little more than a restatement of the above quoted language of Section 2 (a) of the Lucas Act, and we can think of no basis on which its validity might be challenged.

It is defendant’s position that, assuming Acme’s claim as submitted to the Maritime Commission to be correct, Acme was unable to account for its receipts and costs on contracts it had with the Government prior to 1943, and therefore Acme has failed to prove its net loss on all government contracts during the statutory period.

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

Waxman v. United States, 112 F. Supp. 570, 125 Ct. Cl. 464, 1953 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 175 (cc 1953).

112 F. Supp. 570 (Waxman v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Summerfield Housing Ltd. Partnership v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,397 (Federal Claims, 1998)
In Re Medina
177 B.R. 335 (D. Oregon, 1994)
United California Discount Corp. v. United States
36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,804 (Court of Claims, 1990)
Produce Factors Corp. v. United States
467 F.2d 1343 (Court of Claims, 1972)
Evans Reamer & MacHine Company v. The United States
386 F.2d 873 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. United States
280 F.2d 832 (Court of Claims, 1960)
BOLINDERS COMPANY v. United States
153 F. Supp. 381 (Court of Claims, 1957)
Worth Engineering Co. v. United States
135 Ct. Cl. 843 (Court of Claims, 1956)
Warner Construction Co. v. United States
115 F. Supp. 465 (Court of Claims, 1953)
Warner Const. Co. v. United States
115 F. Supp. 465 (Court of Claims, 1953)