Cmgt 6200 - United States V. Spearin

[pic 1]

Homework No.2

  CMGT 6200

  Case Studies:

   Prepared By

Yao Cui

Rk 4462

October 12, 2017

United States v. Spearin

248 U.S. 132 (1918)

Spearin contracted to build for $755,800 a dry-dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard according to plan and specifications prepared by the government. Before the construction, Spearin need relocate the intersected 6-foot brick sewer, Spearin complied all the prescribed requirements, and the government satisfied and accepted the substituted section. After a year after this relocation of the 6-foot sewer, the 6-foot sewer broke. Upon investigation, the investigator found there was a dam diverting the greater part of th3e water to the 6-foot sewer and caused the internal pressure broke the 6-foot sewer. The dam was not shown either on the city’s plan nor on the government’s plans which were submitted to Spearin. The site selected for the dry dock was low ground and the sewer had overflowed, but the government official had not been communicated to Spearin the fact. Since Spearin did not know the overflowed fact, he had made no special examination of the sewers nor special inquiry into the flood situation, Spearin declined to proceed the contract and took responsibility on the damage unless the government assumed responsibility for future damage, the government annulled the contract.

        Due to the Rule of Simpson v. United States, 172 U.S. 372; Dermott v .Jones, 2 Wall: if the contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications. And the Rule from Christie v. United States, 237 U.S. 234: contractor should be relieved if he was misled by erroneous statements in the specifications. In this situation, since the contractor, Spearin, follow the plan and specification to build the dry-dock, he is not responsibility for the sewer broken because the unknow dam caused the sewer broken.

        At the end, Spearin became entitled to compensation of all losses resulting from the breach of contract. And the government was liable for all damages resulting from the breach.

Fuller Co. v. United States

 69 F. Supp. 409 (19476)

        The plaintiff sues the defendant for damages for delays because the defendant failed to furnish models on time. The plaintiff has contract for the erection of the Archives Building in the City of Washington, D.C. for the ornamentation of granite, limestone, bronze, plaster, and other materials. The plaintiff claimed that the delayed due to the government’s failure to promptly approve the limestone for the building.