-
408 F.2d 739·
Ct. Cl.·
1969-03-14
The court held that the plaintiff's claims of delay were not supported by substantial evidence and that the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals' decision was not erroneous. The court also rejected preliminary challenges to the Board's opinion and the plaintiff's attempt to a
-
394 F.2d 515·
Ct. Cl.·
1968-05-10
The court held that the administrative proceedings were procedurally inadequate and remanded the case to the Department of Commerce Appeals Board for further action.
-
388 F.2d 697·
Ct. Cl.·
1967-12-15
The court held that the "subcontractors or suppliers" clause in a government contract, when excusing delays, refers to those with whom the prime contractor is in privity of contract, not all lower-tier subcontractors.
-
329 F.2d 657·
Ct. Cl.·
1964-03-13
The court held that the contract unambiguously designated Murfreesboro, Tennessee as the f.o.b. point, and that rail facilities 1.5 and 7.5 miles from the plant were 'near' it.
-
317 F.2d 652·
8th Cir.·
1963-05-28
A surety is not released from its obligations under a performance bond due to lack of notice of default if the bond itself does not require such notice. Material variations in a subsequent contract do not preclude using the cost differential as damages if those variations did not