Crane Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The facts of the case appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court. • In considering a contract of this kind, it should be borne in mind that the courts have always preferred to construe such provisions as penalties rather than as liquidated damages. 13 L. E. A., page 672 (note), cites a long line of authorities in support of the proposition.
Read the full summary
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The facts of the case appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court. • In considering a contract of this kind, it should be borne in mind that the courts have always preferred to construe such provisions as penalties rather than as liquidated damages. 13 L. E. A., page 672 (note), cites a long line of authorities in support of the proposition. In line with this tendency, it has universally been held that in doubtful cases the courts will always construe the provision as a penalty. “ If by the agreement it is doubtful whether the parties intended that…
1Opinion of the CourtAteinson, J.
The claimant company in its petition alleges that it entered into two contracts with the Isthmian Canal Commission on June 26, 1906, and September 11, 1906, respectively, whereby it agreed to deliver to said commission on the Isthmus of Panama, within certain periods, certain pipes and fittings for a stipulated price. Said contracts provided that in case there was delay in delivery beyond the contract time there should be a deduction from the contract price at the rate of one-tenth of 1 per cent of the total cost of the *347undelivered material for every day of such delay. The material part of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
3Cited by4 opinions
- Dj Manufacturing Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Pacific Hardware & Steel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1914
- Pacific Hardware & Steel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1913
- MacDonald v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1932