Trans Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. United States

7 Citing cases

  1. W.G. Cornell Co. of Wash., D.C., Inc. v. U.S.

    376 F.2d 299 (Fed. Cir. 1967)   Cited 14 times

    Every writing must be interpreted with reference to its whole meaning, and to this end an examination of the entire instrument is required. Trans Int'l. Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 351 F.2d 1001, 173 Ct.Cl. 312 (1965); Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States, 241 U.S. 387, 392, 36 S.Ct. 662, 60 L.Ed. 1058 (1916). Indeed, it is axiomatic that the polestar of interpretation is "* * * the intention of the parties [which] must be gathered from the whole instrument."

  2. Hunkin Conkey Construction Co. v. U.S.

    461 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1972)   Cited 1 times
    Rejecting plaintiffs's argument that it had the right to perform "all" work under the contract that contained "changed conditions" and "other contracts" clauses

    If at all possible, a contract should be read as a whole and effect should be given to all of the contract terms. See, e. g., Trans International Airlines v. United States 351 F.2d 1001, 173 Ct.Cl. 312 (1965). Additional work as used in the above quoted provision simply means work not covered by the terms of the contract.

  3. Keco Industries, Inc. v. United States

    428 F.2d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1970)   Cited 98 times
    In Keco, the Court of Claims stated that "as a result of Scanwell a party, who can make a prima facie showing of arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the Government in the handling of a bid situation, does have standing to sue.... [E]very bidder has the right to have his bid honestly considered by the Government, and if this obligation is breached, then the injured party has the right to come into court and try and prove his cause of action."

    However, in none of these cases was the plaintiff allowed to recover. Trans Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 351 F.2d 1001, 173 Ct.Cl. 312 (1965); Green Manor Constr. Co. v. United States, 169 Ct.Cl. 413 (1965); Iscow v. United States, 161 Ct.Cl. 875 (1963); Locke v. United States, 151 Ct. Cl. 262, 283 F.2d 521 (1960); Keco Indus., Inc. v. United States, 149 Ct.Cl. 837 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 815, 81 S.Ct. 697, 5 L.Ed.2d 694 (1961). However, Scanwell, with its very complete and thorough coverage of the "standing" question, appears to conclusively settle the issue in favor of plaintiff in this case.

  4. Ace Construction Company v. United States

    185 Ct. Cl. 487 (Fed. Cir. 1968)   Cited 6 times

    Plaintiff's allegations that the Government had the duty to balance excavation and fill and that the Government misrepresented the capacity of area No. 34 โ€” at the meeting and through the joint survey โ€” also rest heavily upon the determination of this issue. From reading the entire contract, as is appropriate (Trans Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 351 F.2d 1001, 173 Ct.Cl. 312 (1965)), we determine that the only reasonable interpretation of its provisions is that the Government was not responsible for making surveys to include waste areas. Plaintiff relies upon paragraph SC-13 of the contract to support its position. This paragraph has two basic subdivisions.

  5. Coastal Cargo Company v. United States

    351 F.2d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1965)   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Coastal Cargo Co. v. United States, 351 F.2d 1004, 1007 173 Ct.Cl. 259, 263 (1965), we assumed "that, under appropriate circumstances, a court could overturn the decision of the contracting officer that an award must be made without delay."

    On the same date, the contract was awarded to Los Angeles. Various claims of Los Angeles arising out of its contract, are the subject of Trans International Airlines, Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 351 F.2d 1001. Upon receipt of the notice of cancellation, plaintiff ceased performance of the contract.

  6. Edelman v. Federal Housing Administration

    251 F. Supp. 715 (E.D.N.Y. 1966)   Cited 9 times

    Accordingly, Edelman falls within the category of a person who is unable to demonstrate any specific, particular right of his own which has been violated as distinguished from the public's interest in the administration of law. See United States v. Gray Line Water Tours of Charleston, 4 Cir. 1962, 311 F.2d 779; Wooldridge Manufacturing Company v. United States, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 286, 235 F.2d 513, cert. denied, 351 U.S. 989, 76 S.Ct. 1054, 100 L.Ed. 1502; Friend v. Lee, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 224, 221 F.2d 96; Trans International Airlines Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl. 1965, 351 F.2d 1001; Heyer Products Co., Inc. v. United States, 1956, 140 F. Supp. 409, 135 Ct.Cl. 63, and Ct.Cl. 1959, 177 F. Supp. 251; Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. United States Department of Interior, E.D.Pa. 1958, 160 F. Supp. 417. Compare, Northern States Power Co. v. Rural Electrification Administration, D.C.Minn. 1965, 248 F. Supp. 616. "Often tenders or bids are advertised for by public corporations, municipalities, counties or states, or private corporations.

  7. In re Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. Avianca

    323 B.R. 879 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 7 times

    If the language were interpreted as Pegasus suggests, the introductory clause would be rendered meaningless. It is a cardinal principle of contract construction that a document should be read to give effect to all its provisions and to render them consistent with each other. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins.Co. v. Carolina Power Light Co., 717 F.2d 664, 669 fn.7 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted) (applying New York law); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS ยง 203(a) (1981). On a plain reading of the documents, the rights that Pegasus reserved are "subject to the foregoing amendments with respect to rent . . .". (Pegasus MOU, pp. 3, 4.) See Trans Intern. Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 351 F.2d 1001, 1003 (Ct.Cl. 1965). The result of the foregoing is that Pegasus can only assert "pre and postpetition claims" if they do not conflict with the lease amendments relating to "rent".