« ZurückWeiter »
See Jurisdiction I, II, III; Taxes XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX.
See Indian Claims I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX.
ALASKA ROAD COMMISSION.
See Overtime Pay I, II, III, IV.
See Civil Service Annuity I, II, III.
See Suit for Salary X.
ARMY PROPERTY, TRANSPORTATION OF.
See Contracts XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV,
XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX.
CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES.
See Taxes I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII.
CAREER COMPENSATION ACT.
See Pay and Allowances V, VI, VII, VIII.
See Appeals from Indian Claims Commission VII, VIII, IX.
CIVIL SERVICE ANNUITY.
I. In a suit for the annuity to which plaintiff claims he
is entitled under Section 6 of the Civil Service
Retirement Act, where the question involved is
whether or not the plaintiff had the five years of
service required by the Act, it is held that plaintiff is
entitled to recover. Curzon, 5.
United States On 39 (15).
II. Under the provisions of Section 6 of the Civil Service
Retirement Act in effect on September 2, 1947,
plaintiff, a classified employee of the Government,
who had served 4 years, 11 months and 9 days, was
entitled to include accrued annual leave of 57 days,
to which he was entitled and for which he was paid,
in the calculation of his length of service for retire-
ment pay as a civilian employee, before his induction
into the armed forces. Id.
United States em 39 (15).
CIVIL SERVICE ANNUITY_Continued
III. Plaintiff, a classified employee in the civil service, was
inducted into the military service on June 3, 1942,
at which time he had served in the civil service 4
years, 11 months and 9 days, and he had 57 days of
accrued annual leave, for which he was subsequently
paid. After the expiration of his annual leave he was
carried on the Government rolls on a furlough basis
through September 30, 1947. On November 1,
1947, he was discharged from the military service
for physical disability incurred in line of duty, and
began to receive retired pay from the Army. Ex-
cluding his military service, it is held that under the
applicable statutes he is entitled to annuity under
the Civil Service Act, as amended, on the basis of 5
years service in the civilian establishment. (See
Prentiss v. United States, 123 C. Cls. 225.) Id.
United States Om 39 (15).
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
See Suit for Salary IV, V, VI, VII, XL, XLI.
CIVIL SERVICE PROCEDURE.
See Suit for Salary XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI,
XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII,
COAST GUARD OFFICER.
See Pay and Allowances V, VI, VII, VIII.
COMPTROLLER GENERAL, SETTLEMENT BY.
See Overtime Pay I, II, III, IV.
CONGRESS, RECOGNITION BY.
See Indian Claims I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX,
CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT.
CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT-Continued
which had been denied by the Board in its preliminary
decision. Defendant's motion for summary judgment
is denied. Condenser Service, 1.
United States from 74 (16).
II. As to all parts of its claim that were denied by the
Board's preliminary decision, the plaintiff was a
party aggrieved, because the decision had been
against it. Under Section 13 of the Contract
Settlement Act, & war contractor aggrieved by the
decision of the Appeal Board may sue on his claim
in the United States Court of Claims, which the
plaintiff has done and has a right to do. Id.
United States Cwm 74 (16).
See also Contracts LX, LXI, LXII, LXIII, LXIV, LXV.
See Contracts X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVIII, XLIII,
XLIV, XLV, XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L.
III. After performance of the contract had begun it was
found, in August 1943, that the prevailing wage
rate for unskilled labor in the Buffalo area was $1.00
per hour. Plaintiff was compelled to pay this in-
creased rate, in order to perform the contract, and
in the instant case sues to recover the difference.
United States 70 (23).
IV. In September 1943 the Department of Labor, after
investigation, modified the Secretary's prior deter-
mination by increasing the wage rate for unskilled
labor in the Buffalo area to $1.00 per hour retroac-
tively. The Secretary's letter, announcing the
modification, stated that the prior determination of
85 cents was “due to an inadvertence.” Id.
United States Omns 70 (2)3.
V. It is held that the plaintiff is not precluded from recov-
ery in the instant suit by its failure to make request
to the Wage Adjustment Board for a wage adjust-
United States Como 74 (8).
VI. The instant case is distinguished from the case of
United States v. Binghamton Construction Co., Inc.,
347 U. S. 171, in that the contractor in the instant
case prior to performance did make an adequate
and thorough investigation of wage conditions, and
the provisions of the contract in suit fixed not only
the minimum wages but also the maximum wages
which the contractor could pay, on the basis of the
decision of the Secretary of Labor, at the time the
contract was made. The change in the Secretary's
decision and therefore in the contract, brought
about the increased costs for which the instant
suit is brought. The contracting officer required
plaintiff to pay the increased wages. Id.
United States Or 70 (23).
VII. Upon the stipulated facts, which are before the court,
there is nothing to indicate that the contractor's
investigation was inadequate nor that it was made
without reasonable care and diligence. The Secre-
tary of Labor's subsequent letter, admitting depart-
mental error, retroactively increased the wage rate
and the contracting officer required the plaintiff to
pay the increased rate. Id.
United States Omo 70 (23).
VIII. In the circumstances of the contract in suit, it is held
that there was a mutual mistake of fact, and the
contract as executed did not reflect the true intent
of the parties. Id.
United States Or 74 (4).
IX. The United States Court of Claims, in the exercise
of its equitable jurisdiction, and for the purpose of
awarding, or refusing to award, a money judgment
against the United States, may reform a contract
80 as to reflect the true understanding and intent of
the parties. In the instant case the contract in suit
is reformed so as to correct the erroneous wage rate
contained in the specifications. Judgment is based
on the contract as reformed. Id.
United States Oma 74 (4).
X. Plaintiff, a partnership, in 1942 entered into a
contract with the Federal Works Agency, for the
construction of a defense publie works sewer project
in Baltimore. In the instant case plaintiff sues for
excess costs incurred by reason of encountering
quantities of underground water in an amount which
it says it had no reason to expect and concerning
which information was withheld by the defendant.
On the evidence and under the terms and provisions
of the contract, it is held that plaintiff is entitled to
recover. Ragonese and Scaravelli, 156.
United States an 70 (22).
XI. Plaintiff claims that it is entitled to an equitable
adjustment under Article 4 of the contract, because
of an unknown condition; or in the alternative that
it is entitled to excess costs on the ground that the
defendant concealed the existence of this water and
in this way prevented plaintiff from including in its
bid an amount to take care of this condition. Id.
United States Om 70 (22).
XII. On the evidence in the instant case it is difficult
to determine whether or not unusual conditions were
encountered materially differing from the conditions
ordinarily encountered, within the meaning of Article
4 of the contract, although the consulting engineer
and defendant's construction engineer found that
such conditions had been encountered and so re-
ported to the contracting officer but their finding
was never approved by the contracting officer. Id.
United States C 74 (11).