Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesliquidated damages

contractplaintiffdefendant

Related Cases

Gertner v. U.S., 76 Ct.Cl. 643, 1933 WL 1781

Facts

L. Gertner, Sr. entered into a contract with the United States to install a heating system and related work at an Army hospital in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The contract stipulated a completion date of December 24, 1926, and included a liquidated damages clause for delays. The plaintiff faced numerous challenges, including delays in receiving usable equipment from the defendant and restrictions on his ability to work on-site. Despite these challenges, he completed the work by May 21, 1927, but the defendant claimed liquidated damages for the delays.

The plaintiff commenced work promptly. During the performance of the contract questions arose as to the failure of the defendant to supply the machinery in proper condition for installation and the refusal of the defendant to permit the plaintiff to proceed with the work.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the unpaid balance of the contract price and whether the defendant was entitled to liquidated damages for delays in completion.

The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Rule

The court applied principles of contract law, particularly regarding the obligations of parties under a construction contract and the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract whereby the plaintiff was to install boilers furnished by the defendant in a new power house, remove the laundry machinery from the old laundry building into the new laundry building, and to construct and install a distributive heating system for the old and new buildings on the Army Hospital grounds at Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Analysis

The court analyzed the contract terms and the circumstances surrounding the delays. It found that the plaintiff had exercised due diligence in performing his obligations and that the delays were largely attributable to the defendant's failure to provide adequate equipment and timely access to the work site. The court noted that the plaintiff's requests for extensions were reasonable given the circumstances.

The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the unpaid balance of $9,992.00, as the delays were not his fault. The defendant's counterclaim for liquidated damages was denied.

The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the unpaid balance of $9,992.00, as the delays were not his fault.

Who won?

L. Gertner, Sr. prevailed in the case because the court found that the delays in completion were primarily due to the defendant's actions, not the plaintiff's.

The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the delays were primarily caused by the defendant's actions.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hyma v. Lee, 338 Mich. 31, 60 N.W.2d 920

Lane v. Chowning, 610 F.2d 1385

Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 104 S.Ct. 2820, 81 L.Ed.2d 758

Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 765 N.W.2d 691, 2009 ND 87

Salmon v. Atkinson, 355 Ark. 325, 137 S.W.3d 383