United States v. Normile
239 U.S. 344 (1915)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Normile, 239 U.S. 344 (1915)

United States v. Normile

Nos. 83, 84

Argued December 3, 1915

Decided December 13, 1915

239 U.S. 344

Syllabus

A contract to produce a result does not bring the means employed to provide it into the contract. United States v. O'Brien,220 U. S. 321. In this case, a contractor was not allowed the expense of erecting temporary dams because the government engineer suggested that it be placed in a certain location that proved impracticable, necessitating relocation and rebuilding, as the contract only called for the location of the permanent structure by the engineer.

An extension of time requested by claimant, without any suggestion that it was made necessary by fault of the government or by the violence of the elements, held, in view of the warning given on granting the extension, not to absolve claimant from the extra expenses specified in the contract in case such extension were allowed.

Page 239 U. S. 345

A government contractor in this case held not to be entitled to extra compensation by reason of advanced prices in labor and materials due to outbreak of war, it appearing that the increased expense was not due to any breach on the part of the United States.

49 Ct.Cl. 73 reversed.

The facts, which involve the construction of, and the amounts due on, contracts for public works with the United States are stated in the opinion.

Page 239 U. S. 346

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.