Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Unicon Management Corp. v. United States

375 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1967)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Unicon Management Corp. v. United States

5 Citing cases

  1. Lockheed Martin IR Imaging Systems, Inc. v. West

    108 F.3d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1997)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the "partial exercise" of an option improper

    Thus the various contract provisions must be read as part of an organic whole, according reasonable meaning to all of the contract terms. Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Unicon Management Corp. v. United States, 375 F.2d 804, 806 (Ct.Cl. 1967). Such interpretation must assure that no contract provision is made inconsistent, superfluous, or redundant. McAbee Construction, Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d 1431, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v. United States, 998 F.2d 953, 958 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

  2. Franchi Const. Co., Inc. v. United States

    609 F.2d 984 (Fed. Cir. 1979)   Cited 3 times
    In Franchi Construction Co. v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 796, 609 F.2d 984 (1979), the Court of Claims found that the details of a provision of the specifications conflicted with the details of the drawings and relied on the order of precedence clause to conclude that the specifications govern.

    It invoked two familiar and related principles of interpretation,viz, that potentially conflicting provisions should, if their language reasonably permits, be assigned meanings that will place them in harmony rather than discord. Unicon Management Corp. v. United States, 375 F.2d 804, 806, 179 Ct.Cl. 534, 537-38 (1967), and that a provision directed to a particular matter prevails over one which is general in its terms. Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 972, 980, 169 Ct.Cl. 384, 396 (1965).

  3. HRH Construction Corp. v. United States

    428 F.2d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1970)   Cited 11 times

    That proposition, however, does not control the disposition of this concrete case. J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. United States, supra; Unicon Management Corp. v. United States, 375 F.2d 804, 806, 179 Ct.Cl. 534, 538 (1967). "What constitutes a patent and glaring omission [in a contract] cannot, of course, be defined generally but only on an ad hoc basis by looking to what a reasonable man would find to be patent and glaring."

  4. D L Construction Co. Associates v. U.S.

    185 Ct. Cl. 736 (Fed. Cir. 1968)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that it was not incumbent upon contractor to seek clarification of contract drawings and specifications with respect to grading and drainage work since inconsistencies contained therein were not so gross and patent as to constitute adequate warning to plaintiff that it was obliged to seek clarification, but finding no inconsistencies regarding plastering and painting work, since contract specifically stated that in the case of differences between the drawings and specifications, the specifications would govern

    Plaintiff cannot now bridge the crevasse in its favor; i.e., plaintiff cannot rely on the principle that ambiguities in contracts written by the Government are construed against the drafter. Beacon Constr. Co. v. United States, 314 F.2d 501, 161 Ct.Cl. 1 (1963); Unicon Management Corp. v. United States, 375 F.2d 804, 179 Ct.Cl. 534 (1967). In resolving the conflict between the Room Finish Schedule and the large scale drawing of the type BB door frame, one has only to refer to the contract general provisions which provided that in case of difference between the drawings and specifications, the latter shall govern.

  5. J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. United States

    395 F.2d 783 (Fed. Cir. 1968)   Cited 12 times

    * * *" Allied Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 381 F.2d 995, 1000, 180 Ct.Cl. 1057, 1064, (1967). Accord Unicon Management Corp. v. United States, 375 F.2d 804, 179 Ct.Cl. 534 (1967). Plaintiff did notice paragraph 14-04 and did meditate on what it took to be its apparent conflict with QQ-I-716, and chose to resolve it by ignoring the plain language of 14-04.