WOOD ET AL., TRADING AS PHILADELPHIA STEAM HEATING COMPANY,
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Philadelphia Steam Heating Company contracted with the United States to install a heating system for a Washington post office building, but the Government ordered multiple suspensions of the work causing an eighteen-month delay beyond the contract deadline. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment denying recovery for damages from the delay, holding that the contract's explicit clause prohibiting claims for damages arising from any Government-caused delay barred the contractor's recovery, regardless of whether the contract specifically mentioned suspension as a cause of delay.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the court.
• The Philadelphia Steam Heating Company made a contract with the United States, approved April 5, 1897, .to furnish and install the boiler plant, heating system and other apparatus for the post-office building at Washington then under construction. The price fixed was $111,373; the time for completion 250 working days; with a forfeiture of $100 a day for each day’s delay. The contract provided that for each day’s delay “ in the execution of the work ” caused “ through any fault ” of the Government one additional day was to be allowed for its completion; but “that no claim shall be made or allowed for damages which may arise out of any delay caused by the ” Government. The right to make additions to or omissions from the work was reserved by the United States, allowance therefor to be'determined by the Supervising Architect ; and it was provided “ that no claim for damages, on account of such changes or for anticipated profits, shall be made or allowed.”
The work was entered upon promptly both at the factory in Philadelphia and at Washington. About a month thereafter the Secretary of the Treasury requested suspension of certain work, 'in view of contemplated changes, and notified the contractor that he would be entitled to “ one day additional for each day’s delay caused by the Government, as provided for by your contract.” Radical changes in plan were made. There was a suspension for ten months of part of the work which had to be done in the building; and later another suspension was ordered. The whole work was not completed until eighteen months after the expiration of the contract period. . This delay was attributable mainly, if not wholly, to the Government. To recover for the expenses and loss which resulted from this delay, as well as for extra work, this suit was brought in the Court of Claims. Judgment was entered for the value of the extra work; but the court, following its decision in Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. United States, 40 Ct. Clms. 117, denied recovery for damages due to the suspension.
The appeal to this court was taken before our decision in Wells Brothers Co. v. United States, 254 U. S. 83. There the contract gave to the United States in terms “ the right of suspending the whole or any part of the work.” The absence of such a provision in the contract here under consideration is mainly relied upon to distinguish this case. But here, as there, the contract provided that no claim shall be made or allowed for any damages which may arise out of any delay caused by the United States. Suspension by the Government is one qf several possible causes of delay — and not an uncommon one.
Moreover, when the contractor was first directed to suspend work, he replied: “ We are not objecting to this, but we desire to call the department’s attention to the matter in order that we may be entitled to extra time should we be unable to complete the work within the time named in our contract.” So far as appears no protest was ever made against the prolonged suspension; nor was there any claim made of a right to damages arising therefrom until it was asserted in this suit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
H. E. Crook Co., Inc. v. United States, 270 U.S. 4 (U.S. 1926)…y. We are of opinion that the failure to exclude the present claim was due to the fact that the whole frame of the contract was understood to shut it out, although in some cases the Government’s lawyers have been more careful. Wood v. United States, 258 U. S. 120. The plaintiff’s time was extended and it was paid the full contract price. In our opinion it is entitled to nothing more. Judgment affirmed.…
-
City of Orlando v. Murphy, 84 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1936)…prolonged) was a corresponding extension of time, we think the claim for damages for delay, including extra bond premiums, should have been disallowed. Wells Bros. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 83, 41 S.Ct. 34, 65 L.Ed. 148; Wood v. United States, 258 U.S. 120, 42 S.Ct. 209, 66 L.Ed. 495. Our conclusion is that no recovery of damages either for anticipated profits or for delay was allowable under the facts alleged in the declaration or shown by the evidence. The court disallowed the pleas based on portio…
-
City of Orlando v. Murphy, 94 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1938)…y, and for loss of anticipated profits on work not done. The claim for 'damages for delay was definitely and finally rejected upon the authority of Wells Bros. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 83, 41 S.Ct. 34, 65 L.Ed. 148, and Wood v. United States, 258 U. S. 120, 42 S.Ct. 209, 66 L.Ed. 495. It was as definitely and finally decided that the terms of the contract, and of the specifications expressly made a part of it, restrict the consequences of undue delay on the part of the City to a mere prolongation of t…
Authorities Cited
- Wells Bros. Co. of N.Y. v. United States, 254 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1920)