Locke v. United States case brief summary
283 F.2d 521 (1960)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff contractor sued defendant United States on two contracts. One claim was for lost profits resulting from an alleged breach of a requirements contract covering repair of typewriters. A second claim was for damages allegedly resulting from defendant's improper refusal to accept plaintiff's bid on another typewriter repair contract. Both parties sought summary judgment. Plaintiff claimed that the first contract was terminated for default without proper cause, and that it was improperly denied an opportunity to bid on the second contract. Defendant claimed that no damage had resulted to plaintiff, because under a requirements contract, no minimum requirement was guaranteed.
DISCUSSION
Both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied on the first contract, as the issue necessitated further determinations by the trial commissioner to determine plaintiff contractor's damages. On the second contract, summary judgment was granted for defendant United States, and plaintiff's petition was dismissed, as the alleged injury was too remote to warrant an award of damages.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
283 F.2d 521 (1960)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff contractor sued defendant
United States for lost profits resulting from an alleged breach of a
requirements contract covering repair of typewriters, and for damages
allegedly resulting from defendant's improper refusal to accept a bid
on another typewriter repair contract. Both parties filed motions for
summary judgment.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff contractor sued defendant United States on two contracts. One claim was for lost profits resulting from an alleged breach of a requirements contract covering repair of typewriters. A second claim was for damages allegedly resulting from defendant's improper refusal to accept plaintiff's bid on another typewriter repair contract. Both parties sought summary judgment. Plaintiff claimed that the first contract was terminated for default without proper cause, and that it was improperly denied an opportunity to bid on the second contract. Defendant claimed that no damage had resulted to plaintiff, because under a requirements contract, no minimum requirement was guaranteed.
DISCUSSION
- The court disagreed, and it directed the trial commissioner to make further determinations on the amount of damage that plaintiff incurred with respect to the first contract.
- With respect to the second contract, however, the court found any injuries too remote to warrant an award of compensation to plaintiff.
- There was ample evidence to justify the contracting officer's refusal of plaintiff's bid on that contract.
Both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied on the first contract, as the issue necessitated further determinations by the trial commissioner to determine plaintiff contractor's damages. On the second contract, summary judgment was granted for defendant United States, and plaintiff's petition was dismissed, as the alleged injury was too remote to warrant an award of damages.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment