American Optical Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM;*
In this case, before the court for review on cross-motions for summary judgment, plaintiff contends that an administrative decision1 disallowing so much of plaintiffs claim for an equitable adjustment, under the "Price Escalation” clause of its contract with defendant, as *134exceeded 10 percent of the total contract price, is "grossly erroneous as a matter of law and fact and should be reversed by this Court.”
On the facts and for the reasons hereinafter set forth, it is concluded that plaintiff is entitled to recover.
I
The factual background against which plaintiffs claims of error…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Porter v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1974
- Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1976
- Truong Xuan Truc v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1976
- AMCO Electric v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1974