Case ID: us-ct-cl_20/html/0524-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE UNITED STATES v. JOHN M. MUELLER. JOHN M. MUELLER v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (19 C. Cls. R., 581; 113 U. S. R., 153.)
    
      Both parties appeal.
    
    A contractor’s proposals offer to furnish building stone of different sizes at different rates — for stones from 150 to 200 feet, a certain price per foot; for stones above 200. feet, a greater price. The defendants’ acceptance accedes to the terms for stones from 150 to 200 feet, but is silent as to stones exceeding 200 feet. The formal contract omits the limitation of 200 feet, and fixes the same price for all which exceed 150 feet. The contract also binds the contractor to deliver stone “at such times and in such quantities as may he required ” by the other party. Stone is injured in the progress of the work and charged without objection to the contractor.
    
      The court below decides—
    (1.) The common-law rule that j:>rior understandings of contracting parties are merged in the final contract cannot he strictly applied to government contracts required hy law to he made by advertisements, bids, and acceptances.
    (2.) Though a formal contract provide that for stones whose demensions exceed 150 cubic feet the price shall be $1.47 per cubic foot, yet if the proposals and acceptance show that the price was limited to stones running from 150 to 200 feet, the intention of the parties will be deemed to have been expressed by the proposals and acceptance, and not by formal contract.
    (3.) Settlements whereby defaced and injured stone is charged by one party to the other, who acquiesces and receipts in full for a balance, . should not be disturbed unless the party giving the receipt can establish a mistake.
    (4.) The word “required,” which occurs frequently in government contracts, may relate to the wants of the service or to the unsettled purpose of the government. Where the provision is to furnish stone “ at such times and in such quantities as may be required,” the word must be construed to refer to the wants of the service. Therefore, if the government cause delay by a change of plan, the contractor should recover his damages.
   The opinion of the court below is affirmed on the grounds: (1) Under contracts to furnish stone to the United States.for a building, and to saw it, and cut and dress it, all as “ required,” the contractor may recover damages for enforced suspensions of and delays in the work by the United States, arising from doubts as to the desirability of completing the building with the stone, and on the site, which involved the examination of the foundation and the stone by several commissions. (2) A contract to furnish “ all of the dimension stone that may be required in the construction ” of a building does not include dimension stone used in “ the approaches or steps leading up into the building.”

Mr. justice Blatcheokd delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 19, 1885.