Pacific Hardware & Steel Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
On defendants’ Motion and Demurrer. The Reporter’s statement of the case: The averments of the petition involved are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. F. B. Rhodes in opposition. Out of the maze of conflicting decisions of the Courts, the following principles of law relating to the subject of liquidated damages can be definately stated: 1. The wording of the contract is immaterial, the intention of the parties alone governing.
Read the full summary
On defendants’ Motion and Demurrer. The Reporter’s statement of the case: The averments of the petition involved are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. F. B. Rhodes in opposition. Out of the maze of conflicting decisions of the Courts, the following principles of law relating to the subject of liquidated damages can be definately stated: 1. The wording of the contract is immaterial, the intention of the parties alone governing. U. S. v. South Bethlehem, Steel Oo., 205 U. S., 105. 2. If the contract covers the purchase of articles of such a nature that the actual damages…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, Chief Justice
During the years 1905 and 1906 the claimant and defendants entered into several contracts whereby claimant agreed to furnish and deliver certain materials to defendants at Mare Island, Cal., for use at their navy yard by a day certain named in each contract and for an agreed compensation. Each of the contracts contained a stipulation as follows:
“ It is further covenanted and agreed, as aforesaid, that if the party of the first part shall fail to deliver any or all of the articles or materials, or to perform any or all of the services herein contracted for, in conformity with the conditions…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Sun Printing and Publishing Assn. v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Kihlberg v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. Bethlehem Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Martinsburg & Potomac Railroad v. MarchSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- United States v. GleasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dj Manufacturing Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Penn Bridge Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1924
- Thomas v. FoulgerUtah Supreme Court · 1928
- Brinck v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1918
- United States v. City and County of San FranciscoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.