Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Reporter's Statement of the Case

spector directed the plaintiff to ship-lap joints under some twenty-nine other buildings. The cost to the plaintiff of the additional materials and labor involved, plus 10 per cent profit, amounted to $722.01.

XIX. The drawings and specifications did not require flashing around doors and windows except over doors and windows exposed to the weather. The defendant's inspector directed the contractor to place flashing along the sides of all doors and windows. The additional cost to the plaintiff, plus 10 per cent profit, was $898.43.

XX. The specifications required that window screens be fitted into the windows against a blind stop. This method of fitting required only screws to hold the screens in place. The inspector for the Government directed the plaintiff to have all of the screens on brass hinges and to provide hooks and screw-eyes at the bottom of the screens. The cost of the additional labor and material plus 10 per cent profit was $813.54.

XXI. On April 19, 1918, representatives of plaintiff called on Lincoln Rogers, who was project manager of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and who had, on March 4, 1918, as such officer signed and approved the drawings attached to and a part of the contract, and presented him with a list of lumber required for the work and of the grades specified in the contract. Mr. Rogers took plaintiff's representatives to the office of Mr. Edgar, lumber director of the War Industries Board. Mr. Edgar told them they would have to get the lumber from the Alabama-Mississippi Emergency Lumber Bureau, as he could not place the order with the GeorgiaFlorida Bureau, and that he would have to change the grades on the list, which he immediately did, and Mr. Rogers then and there approved the change. Mr. Edgar thereupon referred the representatives to Mr. Wooten, the Washington representative of the Alabama-Mississippi Emergency Lumber Bureau. Mr. Wooten took the revised list and said he would place the order with the mills in two days, or on or about April 21, 1918, and that the lumber would be shipped within five days thereafter. The evidence does not

Reporter's Statement of the Case

disclose when shipment was made from the said mills, but does show that the first carload arrived in Cape May on May 15, 1918, and deliveries were made thereafter from time to time until August 23, 1918. Many cars containing the required lumber were tied up in various freight yards and plaintiff sent several expediters out in an effort to have the cars moved promptly. Plaintiff was greatly hindered and delayed in the progress of its work by reason of the said delays in the delivery of the lumber and was required to expend large sums in expediting its delivery and for idle labor while waiting for its arrival. The loss to the plaintiff in overhead, time of laborers and carpenters, and in expediting the shipments amounts to $9,562.79.

XXII. As the lumber ordered as described in Finding XXI arrived at the camp it was inspected by the Government inspector. He required the plaintiff to handle separately each piece of lumber for his inspection. The customary method of inspection in the construction industry is to inspect the lumber as it is placed in the building which requires no inspection handling. The said inspector rejected large quantities of the said lumber, because it was not of the same grade as originally required by the specifications before the said lumber director, Mr. Edgar (Finding XXI), had changed the grades in the list of the lumber presented to him. The plaintiff was thereby required to purchase large quantities of additional lumber in local and near-by markets to take the place of that so rejected. The loss to the plaintiff by reason of the said rejection of lumber was $3,889.66, and the cost of the additional handling for the inspector was $1,767.00, a total of $5,656.66. The plaintiff made no appeal in the case of any of these rejections to the superiors of the inspector.

XXIII. Defendant's inspector, in the course of his work under the contract, harassed, hindered, and delayed the plaintiff and interfered with and disorganized plaintiff's labor. In numerous instances the said inspector refused to inspect and delayed inspections and decisions on inspections for long periods of time, as a result of which plaintiff's labor was

Reporter's Statement of the Case

kept idle and progress of the work greatly delayed. The said inspector in the course of his work continuously and unreasonably engaged in quarrels and controversies with plaintiff's employees, used abusive language in talking to them, and in general thereby disorganized the work of the plaintiff. The loss to the plaintiff on account of the said inspector's acts and failure and refusal to act amounted to $4,306.22.

XXIV. The plaintiff is indebted to the United States in the sum of $2,405.93 on account of transportation charges on shipments by plaintiff during the period of Federal control of railroads.

XXV. On March 18, 1919, the plaintiff filed a claim with the Bureau of Yards and Docks, Navy Department, consisting of various items amounting in the aggregate to $49,277.77, in connection with the contract in this suit, stated therein to be for extra labor performed and materials furnished, for damages, losses, and expenses caused by delays in securing necessary lumber, and for losses, expenses, and damages in performing extra labor and furnishing extra materials made necessary by the improper actions of a United States inspector.

The claim was, on or about December 16, 1919, referred by the Bureau of Yards and Docks to a board of three representatives of the Government, under paragraph 17 of the general provisions of the contract, and said board reported to the Bureau of Yards and Docks, March 11, 1920, that it had ascertained the increased contract cost due to the changes in plans to be $19,574.90, and the amount of liquidated damages due to delays attributable to the Government to be $7,751.88, "subject to bureau decision as to whether or not such damages are to be allowed the contractor." The said increased cost due to changes and the amount of liquidated damages were reported by the board as allowances.

The contractor's several claims and the board's allowances thereon were, with reference to the findings of fact made

20684-27-C C-VOL. 62- 48

Reporter's Statement of the Case

herein, as follows, certain items in the claims before the said board not being involved in this suit:

[blocks in formation]

The report of the board was in due course considered by the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and sometime after March 12, 1920, the acting chief of that bureau, by indorsement thereon, approved the above allowances of the board only as to the following items:

[blocks in formation]

The total so approved, $7,562.12, was, subsequent to April 22, 1920, paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, and plaintiff has not received any payment on the balance of its said claim of $48,610.94.

In presenting its claims to the Bureau of Yards and Docks plaintiff reserved the right to make additional claims at a later date with respect to the subject matter described in Findings XXII and XXIII.

Reporter's Statement of the Case

XXVI. Work under the contract was finally completed in June, 1919.

On October 24, 1919, the plaintiff executed the following release to the United States in connection with the contract sued on herein:

"Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and of the sum of thirteen thousand eight hundred forty-four dollars and thirty-three cents, lawful money of the United States, being the full and entire sum due upon completion of the work, as aforesaid, to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the said party of the first part does hereby remise, release, and forever discharge the said party of the second part of and from any and all manner of actions, suits, debts, dues, sums, and sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, covenants, controversies, agreements, promises, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity that the said party of the first part has or may have for or on account of or in connection with the contract aforesaid, with the exception of claims for additional compensation dated March 18, 1919, the determination of which are now pending and for freight on cement, the total amount of both not to exceed $50,413.15."

The claims for additional compensation dated March 18, 1919, referred to in the foregoing release, covered all of the claims sued on herein.

XXVII. Lieutenant C. A. Trexel, assistant public-works officer, was, during the period of the transactions recited in these findings, the officer in charge, referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 and other paragraphs of the general provisions of the contract designated as forming part of the specifications.

The Government inspector, referred to in these findings, was a subordinate of the officer in charge.

XXVIII. The plaintiff's bid is not in evidence, and the material portions of its contents not proved, except as they are recited in these findings.

XXIX. On July 23, 1920, the plaintiff presented to the Auditor for the Navy Department, Treasury Department, a claim for items in connection with its work on the said contract. Included therein was an item for unspecified studding for baseboards as an extra which had theretofore been included in the claim referred to in Finding XXV and been considered and disallowed by the Bureau of Yards and

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »