Case ID: us-ct-cl_60/html/0993-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

AMERICAN ELECTRIC CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. B-14.
    
    Decided June 8, 1925]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Contract; error; intention of parties. — A contract will be reformed to express tbe mutual intention of the parties as to the true date for completion.
    
      The Reporter's statement of the cas.e:
    
      Mr. Timothy J. Kart for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. John E. Hoover, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman. J. Galloway, for the defendant.
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. Plaintiff was on April 3, 1917, a corporation duly incorporated under thfe laws of the State of Illinois, is now and was during the different transactions hereinafter set forth in these findings of fact engaged in the manufacture of telephone apparatus and supplies.
    II. On April 3, 1917, plaintiff entered into a certain contract with defendant which was to be completed on December 10, 1917, known as order number 7087.
    III. On May 16, 1917, plaintiff entered into another contract with defendant, for the delivery to defendant, at' the rate of 150 per week, of 6,000 service buzzers, Model 1911, at $34.50 each. A copy of the order and a copy of the contract, marked respectively claimant’s schedule 1 and 2, are attached to the petition and are made a part hereof by reference. The deliveries under this contract were to be at the rate of 150 per week and the date of beginning is stated as of November 14, 1917.
    IV. The date November 14, 1917, was stated in the said contract and is followed by the clause “ Date completion of order 7087 is due.” The order 7087 was due to be completed' on December 10, 1917, and the date November 14, 1917, was erroneously inserted. It was the intention of both parties to the contract to have the deliveries under the contract begin on the date the order number 7087 was due for completion and not earlier.
    V. It is stipulated that all deliveries by plaintiff were on time under said contract dated May 16, 1917.
    
      VI. Defendant’s officers, upon settlement with plaintiff, acting on the presumption that the date of delivery should commence on November 14, 1917, made deductions from the amount otherwise due plaintiff, under a clause contained in said contract referred to in the third finding, in the amount of $802.34, on account of plaintiff’s failure to make deliveries beginning with the erroneous date of November 14.
    The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.
   MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The defendant concedes, and we think properly, that the plaintiff should recover the amount sued for, $802.34. It represented deduction on account of liquidated damages, which the defendant’s officers making the same concluded should be deducted from the amount due plaintiff under the contract. It appears, however, that the date upon which these officers relied, November 14th, was erroneous. What the parties intended was that the deliveries under this contract should commence with the date on which the completion of order number 7087 was due. Order 7087 antedated the contract in question and was due for completion on December 10. Taking December 10 as the correct date, all deliveries were made in due time, according to the stipulations of the contract, and plaintiff was not liable for liquidated damages.

Graham, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.