Wunderlich Act

312 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• WPC Enters. v. The United States
  323 F.2d 874· Ct. Cl.· 1963-10-11 ·cited 157×
  The court held that the Government's demand for components from specific manufacturers was not contractually required due to ambiguity in the specifications, and the contractor's reasonable interpretation should prevail.
• Beacon Constr. Co. of Mass. v. The United States
  314 F.2d 501· Ct. Cl.· 1963-03-06 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the plaintiff is barred from recovering for the cost of weatherstripping windows due to its failure to seek clarification of an obvious ambiguity in the contract specifications before bidding. However, the plaintiff is entitled to recover $1,487.75 for a chang
• Koppers Co., Inc. v. The United States
  405 F.2d 554· Ct. Cl.· 1968-12-13 ·cited 118×
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove performance was impossible or commercially impracticable, thus upholding the termination for default.
• Maxwell Dynamometer Co. & Cent. Penn Nat'l Bank of Philadelphia for the Benefit of Lloyd R. Maxwell & Caroline L. Maxwell v. The United States
  386 F.2d 855· Ct. Cl.· 1967-11-09 ·cited 106×
  The court held that the interpretation of contract specifications is a question of law, not subject to the finality provisions of the Wunderlich Act, and therefore the court is not bound by the ASBCA's decision.
• Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. The United States
  345 F.2d 833· Ct. Cl.· 1965-05-14 ·cited 90×
  When a claim is within the jurisdiction of an administrative board and complete relief is available under the contract, a de novo trial on the facts decided by the board is not permitted, even if the primary issue is a question of law.
• Stein Bros. MFG. Co. v. The United States
  337 F.2d 861· Ct. Cl.· 1963-07-12 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for breach of contract, as the contract specifications were ambiguous and reasonably interpreted by the plaintiff. The court also held that the limitations of the Wunderlich Act are waivable and not jurisdictional.
• Algonac Mfg. Co. (a Close Mich. Corporation) & John A. Maxwell v. The United States
  428 F.2d 1241· Ct. Cl.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 62×
  The court held that John A. Maxwell was not a proper party to sue on contract claims as he was not the real party in interest, and that tort claims were outside the court's jurisdiction. Claims for the ninth contract were barred by the statute of limitations, and other claims wer
• Sundstrand Turbo v. The United States
  389 F.2d 406· Ct. Cl.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 62×
  The court held that increased depreciation costs due to asset valuation were prohibited by the novation agreement, and rental/occupancy costs beyond the reasonable period post-termination were not recoverable.
• Nager Elec. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  368 F.2d 847· Ct. Cl.· 1966-10-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that for claims required to go through mandatory administrative proceedings, the six-year limitations period does not begin to run until the final administrative decision, even if other claims under the same contract accrued earlier.
• Gosman v. The United States
  573 F.2d 31· Ct. Cl.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the Hearing Panel's decisions regarding depreciation, advertising costs, deferred financing charges, and interest-free loans were not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the Panel's rulings.
• Williamsburg Drapery Co. v. The United States
  369 F.2d 729· Ct. Cl.· 1966-12-16 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the trial commissioner's decision to review the merits, finding no abuse of discretion in overlooking procedural defects in the contractor's presentation.
• United Contractors v. The United States
  368 F.2d 585· Ct. Cl.· 1966-10-14 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled during the administrative process and that the contractor encountered a changed condition due to subsurface water, entitling them to an equitable adjustment.
• Paccon, Inc. v. The United States
  399 F.2d 162· Ct. Cl.· 1968-07-17 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the government had an obligation to reasonably enforce the priority schedule it imposed on a separate contractor whose work interfered with the plaintiff's performance, and that the case must be remanded to determine if this obligation was met. Waivers in two
• The Jack Stone Co., Inc. v. The United States
  344 F.2d 370· Ct. Cl.· 1965-04-16 ·cited 50×
  A contract clause stating brand-name references establish a standard of quality, not limit competition, allows for substitution of equal items even if the specifications otherwise name a specific brand.
• Thompson Ramo Wooldridge Inc. v. The United States
  361 F.2d 222· Ct. Cl.· 1966-05-13 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the contract's provisions could be harmonized to allow the warranty of suitability for Government-furnished property to retain meaning, and that making usable prints was an intended use for the microfilm in a manufacturing context.
• L. Rosenman Corp. v. The United States
  390 F.2d 711· Ct. Cl.· 1968-02-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the contractor's interpretation of the contract drawings was reasonable, and the contracting officer's order to install additional valves constituted a contract change entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment.
• S. Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  364 F.2d 439· Ct. Cl.· 1966-07-15 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the specifications clearly required the painting of previously unpainted interior plaster surfaces, and denied the plaintiff's claim for increased costs.
• N. Metal Co. v. United States
  350 F.2d 833· 3d Cir.· 1965-08-27 ·cited 44×
  The limitations period under the Suits in Admiralty Act is tolled during the pendency of administrative proceedings required by a government contract's Disputes Clause.
• Gholson v. The United States
  351 F.2d 987· Ct. Cl.· 1965-10-15 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the plaintiff met its burden of proof to show that some plaster surfaces did not require washing, and that the subcontractor was constructively directed to wash them, entitling the plaintiff to recover additional expenses.
• Dynamics Corp. OF Am. v. The United States
  389 F.2d 424· Ct. Cl.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 42×
• The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. The United States
  444 F.2d 547· Ct. Cl.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Price Escalation clause requires price adjustments based on the indexed prices of specific individual steel commodities used in the contract, not a composite index of unrelated materials.
• J. A. Jones Constr. Co. v. The United States
  390 F.2d 886· Ct. Cl.· 1968-02-16 ·cited 40×
  The United States is liable for damages caused by the Air Force's failure to disclose its plans for a high-priority construction program that necessitated premium wages, even though the Corps of Engineers was the formal contracting agency.
• Urban Plumbing & Heating Co. v. The United States
  408 F.2d 382· Ct. Cl.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the plaintiff signed the supplemental agreement under economic duress and coercion, rendering the release of claims invalid.
• Ordnance Research, Inc. v. The United States
  609 F.2d 462· Ct. Cl.· 1979-10-17 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the ASBCA's decision was not entitled to finality due to lack of substantial evidence, and that the case should not be remanded for further findings on liability, as the evidence supported plaintiff's recovery for certain explosions.
• Astro-Space Labs., Inc. v. The United States
  470 F.2d 1003· Ct. Cl.· 1972-12-12 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the term 'tensile yield strength' in the contract was not ambiguous, and the subsequent clarification did not constitute a change in the scope of work, thus upholding the termination for default.
• Dittmore-Freimuth Corp. v. The United States
  390 F.2d 664· Ct. Cl.· 1968-02-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the ASBCA's findings were not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, and its interpretation of the contract was correct, denying the plaintiff's claims for equitable adjustment.
• Specialty Assembling & Packing Co., Inc. v. The United States
  355 F.2d 554· Ct. Cl.· 1966-01-21 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Government's failure to approve or reject pre-production samples within the contractually stipulated 55 days constituted a breach of contract, and similarly, the delay in furnishing a model rectifier was also a breach. However, the claim regarding defectiv
• Klein v. United States
  285 F.2d 778· Ct. Cl.· 1961-01-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Government could reclassify a termination for default as a termination for convenience, even if the initial reason for termination was incorrect, provided the grounds for convenience termination existed. The contractor is entitled to costs and pro rata pro
• Space Corp. v. The United States
  470 F.2d 536· Ct. Cl.· 1972-12-12 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a contractor's failure to inquire about an obvious omission in contract documents, despite knowing it was missing, bars recovery for reformation or breach of contract.
• The Len Co. & Assocs. v. The United States
  385 F.2d 438· Ct. Cl.· 1967-10-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the specific 'Changes and Changed Conditions' clause in the Capehart Act contract did not cover unilateral or constructive changes, thus such claims were not subject to administrative determination and were triable in court.
• Bennett v. The United States
  371 F.2d 859· Ct. Cl.· 1967-01-20 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiff's interpretation of the contract specifications was reasonable, entitling them to additional compensation for excavation work. The court also held that the defendant waived its right to object to a de novo proceeding by participating without time
• Jamsar, Inc. v. The United States
  442 F.2d 930· Ct. Cl.· 1971-05-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish ambiguity in the government contract specifications and that the plaintiff's interpretation was unreasonable, thus precluding reformation for mistake.
• Bailey Specialized Bldgs., Inc. v. The United States
  404 F.2d 355· Ct. Cl.· 1968-12-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the Government wrongfully terminated the contract for default because it failed to provide the required notice and opportunity to cure, and therefore the termination must be treated as a termination for convenience.
• Roberts v. The United States
  357 F.2d 938· Ct. Cl.· 1966-03-18 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the defendant's excessive supervision breached the contract, but the plaintiff failed to prove damages. The court also disallowed the defendant's counterclaims for delay, savings, and inspection fees, finding waiver or lack of contractual basis.
• Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. The United States
  345 F.2d 535· Ct. Cl.· 1965-05-14 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the defendant's misrepresentations about permafrost were negligent, the plaintiff could only recover for damages directly and reasonably resulting from those specific misrepresentations, not for general permafrost encountered.
• Brown & SON Elec. Co. v. The United States
  325 F.2d 446· Ct. Cl.· 1963-12-13 ·cited 34×
• Air-A-Plane Corp. v. The United States
  408 F.2d 1030· Ct. Cl.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 33×
  A contractor is not estopped from claiming a cardinal change (breach of contract) by first seeking equitable adjustment under the contract's Changes clause, and is entitled to a trial on such claims.
• Paul E. Lehman, Inc. v. The United States
  673 F.2d 352· Ct. Cl.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 32×
  A contractor's failure to certify a claim exceeding $50,000, as required by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, precludes direct judicial review of the contracting officer's decision in this court, even if the officer entertained the claim.
• La Crosse Garment Mfg. Co. v. The United States
  432 F.2d 1377· Ct. Cl.· 1970-10-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on claims II and III, granting partial summary judgment, and denied recovery on other claims.
• J. D. Hedin Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  408 F.2d 424· Ct. Cl.· 1969-03-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the default termination was improper because the contractor was not in delay or default on defective work, and therefore is entitled to recover damages for breach of contract.
• Torncello v. The United States
  681 F.2d 756· Ct. Cl.· 1982-06-16 ·cited 31×
• Francis M. Marley (Formerly Joseph H. Coleman in Bankr. of Firth Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. The United States
  423 F.2d 324· Ct. Cl.· 1970-03-20 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Board of Contract Appeals correctly upheld the termination for default, and the government's claim for excess costs was lost due to improper reprocurement.
• J. L. Simmons Co., Inc. v. The United States
  412 F.2d 1360· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Veterans’ Administration Contract Appeal Board’s decision regarding claims covered by its ruling was adopted, granting plaintiff partial summary judgment and entering judgment for a specific sum, while dismissing other claims.
• Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Grace Line, Inc.
  416 F.2d 1096· D.C. Cir.· 1969-03-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the District Court erred in denying a stay for the banana reefer claims, as the applicability and adequacy of the contract's guaranty clause require factual determination, potentially with administrative assistance.
• Aircraft Assocs. & MFG. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  357 F.2d 373· Ct. Cl.· 1966-03-18 ·cited 30×
  A release signed under economic duress, caused in part by the government's wrongful actions, is invalid, entitling the contractor to recover the value of removed parts.
• W.M. Schlosser Co., Inc. v. The United States
  705 F.2d 1336· Fed. Cir.· 1983-04-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal because the appellant failed to submit a certified claim to the contracting officer as required by the Contract Disputes Act, and this failure cannot be cured by retroactive certification or by ignoring the election to pro
• Johnson v. The United States
  531 F.2d 1037· Ct. Cl.· 1976-03-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the release signed by the plaintiff was valid and barred the claims presented, as it was not obtained under duress and applied to the claims in question.
• McKEE v. The United States
  500 F.2d 525· Ct. Cl.· 1974-07-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the government's misrepresentation of the trail's location on government land constituted a changed condition, entitling the contractor to an equitable adjustment for increased costs incurred due to using helicopters for access.
• Dana Corp. v. The United States
  470 F.2d 1032· Ct. Cl.· 1972-12-12 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiff's proposal objectively offered choices for packaging, and the contract, as clarified by supplemental page 2C, accepted the standard commercial pack, thus denying the claim for additional packaging charges.
• Bell v. The United States
  404 F.2d 975· Ct. Cl.· 1968-12-13 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment for costs incurred due to defective specifications and a constructive deceleration order, including supervisory salaries and travel expenses, but not necessarily the full amount claimed.