Legal Opinion

Ross Engineering Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided October 7, 1940No. 43994PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLittleton, Judge

Upon the facts set forth in the findings, we are of opinion that the defendant unreasonably delayed giving plaintiff notice to proceed after the contract had been executed and the performance bond furnished, and that plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary expenses incurred, in the amount of $3,421.73, on account of such delay. The evidence shows beyond question, and we have found as a fact (1) that twelve days was a reasonable length of time under art. 1 of the contract for the defendant to give notice to proceed and (2) that if the defendant had given plaintiff notice…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Karno-Smith Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1936
  2. Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1931
  3. Detroit Steel Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1926

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Nicon, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
  2. Northern State Construction Co. v. RobbinsWashington Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Hawley v. Orange County Flood Control DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. CEMS, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
  5. Parish v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1951

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API