Legal Opinion
Saul Freedman, D/B/A M. & E. Equipment & Parts Company v. The United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided July 12, 1963No. 124-59PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIS, Judge.
Claiming that he had a binding contract with the defendant to sell and deliver to him some surplus tanks for scrapping, the plaintiff sues because the Air Force refused to hand over this material. He seeks the gain he would have realized if the sale had been consummated.
In February 1957, the Directorate of Procurement of the Air Force’s Northern Air Materiel Area for Europe (situated at Burtonwood, Lancashire, England) 1 called for sealed bids for the purchase as scrap of 450 surplus U. S. Army M-10 tanks then located at Cambridge. Neither the invitation nor the proposed contract…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Lynch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Stevens v. Howard D. Johnson Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950
- Horowitz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1947
- Indiana Metal Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1953
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- WPC Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- New Valley Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Blount Brothers Construction Company v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Cienega Gardens v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1995
- Winstar Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.