Saddler v. United States

22 Citing cases

  1. Air-A-Plane Corporation v. United States

    408 F.2d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1969)   Cited 32 times
    In Air-A-Plane, supra, the court recognized that evidence of damages should be presented to the fact finder, even though the court may ultimately decide there was no cardinal change.

    Rather, a fundamental alteration of this type is a contract breach, entitling the contractor to breach damages. General Contracting Constr. Co. v. United States, 84 Ct.Cl. 570 (1937); Stapleton Constr. Co. v. United States, 92 Ct.Cl. 551 (1940, 1941); Magoba Constr. Co. v. United States, 99 Ct.Cl. 662, 690 (1943); F.H. McGraw Co. v. United States, 130 F. Supp. 394, 397, 131 Ct.Cl. 501, 506 (1955); Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411, 413-415, 152 Ct.Cl. 557, 561, 564 (1961); Aragona Constr. Co. v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 382, 390-391 (1964); J.D. Hedin Constr. Co. v. United States, 347 F.2d 235, 257-258, 171 Ct.Cl. 70, 105-106 (1965); Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 351 F.2d 956, 965-966, 173 Ct.Cl. 180, 193-195 (1965); Tufano Contracting Corp. v. United States, 356 F.2d 535, 541, 174 Ct.Cl. 398, 407-408 (1966); Keco Indus., Inc. v. United States, 364 F.2d 838, 847-848, 176 Ct.Cl. 983, 998-999 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 958, 87 S.Ct. 1027, 18 L.Ed.2d 105 (1967); Luria Bros. Co. v. United States, 369 F.2d 701, 707, 177 Ct.Cl. 676, 687 (1966). See, also, Freund v. United States, 260 U.S. 60, 62-63, 43 S.Ct. 70, 67 L.Ed. 131 (1922).

  2. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Summit Constr. Co.

    422 F.2d 242 (8th Cir. 1969)   Cited 57 times
    Holding threefold change in contract price, from $600,000 to $2,000,000 constituted change outside the scope of the contract

    Kiewit contends that any additional work required of Summit was covered by section 4 of the Kiewit-Summit Subcontract which authorized Kiewit to make additions to Summit's work for commensurate compensation. A similar contention was raised in Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411, 152 Ct.Cl. 557 (1961) with regard to a provision in a contract to provide materials and labor for the construction of a levee embankment which permitted the contracting officer to make changes in the contract specifications provided they were within the general scope of the contract. The government contracting officer made a change order requiring 7950 cubic yards of enbankment at the same unit price as in the original agreement for 5500 cubic yards.

  3. Boyajian v. United States

    191 Ct. Cl. 233 (Fed. Cir. 1970)   Cited 61 times
    In Boyajian v. United States, 423 F.2d 1231, 191 Ct.Cl. 233 (1970), a manufacturing case, the court held the total cost method of computing damages improper because plaintiff had not proved, inter alia, that it was not responsible for added expenses.

    As in all breach of contract cases, the proper measure of damages for defendant's breaches is the amount of plaintiff's extra costs directly attributable to said breaches. Saddler v. United States, supra. [ 287 F.2d 411, 152 Ct.Cl. 557 (1961)] These take the form of delay damages compensated as increased overhead incurred as a result of the protracted performance. Moreover, the contractor is entitled to recover its additional expenditures directly attributable to the breach.

  4. J.D. Hedin Construction Co. v. United States

    171 Ct. Cl. 70 (Fed. Cir. 1965)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that "the government will have to respond in damages for the resulting additional costs which the plaintiff encountered."

    We have recognized that the point at which a change must be considered to be beyond the scope of the contract and inconsistent with the "Changes" article is a matter of degree varying from one contract to another. Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411, 152 Ct.Cl. 557 (1961). Moreover, "a determination of the permissive degree of change can only be reached by considering the totality of the change and this requires recourse to its magnitude as well as its quality."

  5. L.K. Comstock Co., Inc. v. Becon Const. Co., Inc.

    932 F. Supp. 906 (E.D. Ky. 1993)   Cited 14 times
    Applying cardinal change rule to private project because of the "essential similarity of public and private construction contracts with regard to the mechanism for unilateral ordering of changes by the party for whom the work is being performed, and concerns about misuse or overuse of that unilateral authority."

    Id. at 255. Although the court did not address the question of whether state or federal law was applicable to the issue in what is presumed to be a diversity action, it cited both a court of claims case, Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411 (Ct.Cl. 1961); and the state court decision in Oberer Construction Co., supra. See also Westinghouse Electric Corp., v. Garrett Corp., 437 F. Supp. 1301 (D.Md. 1977) (court sitting in diversity found that federal law controlling government contracts would provide "persuasive guidance" to interpretation of changes clause in subcontract for component parts of United States Air Force enemy radar jamming devices, where subcontractor alleged alternative theories of breach, one of which was cardinal change), aff'd 601 F.2d 155 (4th Cir. 1979).

  6. Allied Materials Eq. Co. v. United States

    569 F.2d 562 (Fed. Cir. 1978)   Cited 32 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Allied Materials and Equipment Co. v. United States, 569 F.2d 562, 563-64 (Ct. Cl. 1978), the Court held that the underlying theory is that a contractor should not be compelled to perform a contract substantially different from the contract on which he bid.

    The existence of a cardinal change is principally a question of fact, requiring that each case be analyzed individually in light of the totality of circumstances. See Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 173 Ct.Cl. 180, 194, 351 F.2d 956, 966 (1965); Saddler v. United States, 152 Ct.Cl. 557, 561, 287 F.2d 411, 413 (1961). It may well be that plaintiff will be able to satisfy the burden of going forward with a prima facie case simply by offering the record from the ASBCA proceedings. Since the applicability of the cardinal change doctrine was not before the Board, however, defendant should be afforded the opportunity to present any relevant evidence to the trial judge before this matter is finally resolved.

  7. Nat Harrison Associates, Inc. v. Gulf States

    491 F.2d 578 (5th Cir. 1974)   Cited 46 times
    Finding change orders outside scope of written contract recoverable without prior notice where such change amounts to breach

    J. D. Hedin Construction Company v. United States, 1965, 347 F.2d 235, 257, 171 Ct.Cl. 70. "[A] determination of the permissive degree of change can only be reached by considering the totality of the change and this requires recourse to its magnitude as well as its quality." Saddler v. United States, 1961, 287 F.2d 411, 413, 152 Ct.Cl. 557. Damages can be recovered without fulfillment of the written notice requirement where the changes are outside the scope of the contract and amount to a breach. Id.

  8. Merritt-Chapman Scott v. United States

    429 F.2d 431 (Fed. Cir. 1970)   Cited 14 times

    United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 39 S.Ct. 59, 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918); J.D. Hedin Constr. Co. v. United States, 347 F.2d 235, 171 Ct.Cl. 70 (1965); Laburnum Constr. Corp. v. United States, 325 F.2d 451, 163 Ct.Cl. 339 (1963); Helene Curtis Indus. v. United States, 312 F.2d 774, 160 Ct.Cl. 437 (1963); Leal v. United States, 276 F.2d 378, 149 Ct.Cl. 451 (1960); Warren Bros. Roads Co. v. United States, 105 F. Supp. 826, 123 Ct. Cl. 48 (1952); Potashnick v. United States, 105 F. Supp. 837, 123 Ct.Cl. 197 (1952); Montrose Contracting Co. v. County of Westchester, 80 F.2d 841 (2d Cir. 1936).Cf. Air-A-Plane Corp. v. United States, 408 F.2d 1030, 187 Ct.Cl. 269 (1969); Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411, 152 Ct.Cl. 557 (1961). It is not necessary to treat with this additional "breach" theory of relief, in light of the conclusions expressed above that plaintiff is entitled to relief under the plain meaning of the "Suspension of Work" clause, and that such relief is not interdicted by the so-called "Rice" doctrine.

  9. Jefferson Construction Co. v. United States

    392 F.2d 1006 (Fed. Cir. 1968)   Cited 19 times
    In Jefferson the contractor appealed to the GSA Board of Contract Appeals a decision of the contracting officer awarding it $17,000 and a 21-day extension of time to compensate for construction delays caused when it encountered unexpected subsoil conditions.

    In the absence of government fault, however, compensation for and correction of the errors is provided for by the contract. In Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411, 152 Ct.Cl. 557 (1961), an Article 3 change order case, also relied on by Jefferson, plaintiff argued that the change was beyond the scope of the contract and in breach thereof. That case is in applicable to the changed condition claim presented by Jefferson.

  10. LEN COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES v. UNITED STATES

    181 Ct. Cl. 29 (Fed. Cir. 1967)   Cited 32 times
    In Len Co. Assoc. v. United States, 385 F.2d 438, 181 Ct.Cl. 29 (1967), this court reviewed the law applicable to the bringing of contract claims.

    For example, the Board has rejected the argument that the "cardinal change" rule is applicable to Article 9 even though the clause provides that proposed changes must be "within the general scope" of the contract — words which, when used in the standard "Changes" clause, form the basis for declaring an act to be a cardinal change. See Saddler v. United States, 287 F.2d 411, 413-415, 152 Ct.Cl. 557, 561-564 (1961). The Board's position rested on the view that under the Capehart Act "Changes" clause: