Plato v. United States

The defendant in this case admittedly delayed plaintiff 192 days in completing the work under the contract. The delay operated to increase the cost of the work by protracting the period of performance and by making it necessary for practically all the exterior work to be performed under severely adverse winter conditions, which would not have *677•been encountered but for the delay. The question for decision is whether or not the plaintiff can recover his proven losses resulting from the delay.

Article 15 of the contract provides:

Disputes. — Except as otherwise specifically provided in this…