Case ID: us-ct-cl_53/html/0625-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Clakke", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OLIVER B. SAALFIELD, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN H. BROWN, SURVIVING PARTNER OF JOHN H. BROWN AND HARVEY M. MUNSELL, TRUSTEES, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [51 C. Cls., 22; 246 U. S. 610.]
    Plaintiffs contracted with the United States to furnish certain wire-bound rapid-fire guns and the mounts for the same. The contract provided for certain tests to be made of a. sample gun of each caliber and that the acceptance of the guns by the Government would depend upon such tests proving satisfactory. When submitted to the tests the gun passed some of the requirements satisfactorily, but in others did not, and certain material defects being apparent, the War Department requested plaintiffs to submit the guns to an additional test before approving the gun. Upon failure of plaintiffs to comply with this request, and before any guns were delivered, the contract was annulled by the defendants. Plaintiffs sue for the amount alleged to have been expended toward the performance of the contract before its annulment.
    The Court below decides:
    Where a contract provides that a sample gun shall be tested and the acceptance thereof “ mil depend upon the type gun passing its test satisfactorily,” and where in the test certain defects were disclosed, it is held that the gun was not only to pass successfully through the ordeal to which it was to be subjected, but in addition its conduct during the test and its condition afterward must be such as to be satisfactory to the officers of the Government.
    
      Held, That the gun not having passed the test “ satisfactorily ” in the first instance, and the Chief of Ordnance not having thereupon rejected it, as he had a right to do under the contract, but instead granted the plaintiffs an opportunity for an additional test de hors the contract, this was a favor to the plaintiffs, and if they did not accept it the contract was properly annulled.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed.
   Mr. Justice Clakke

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 22,1918.