Document: 340 U.S. 8 71 S.Ct. 5 95 L.Ed. 10 FOGARTYv.UNITED STATES. No. 6. Argued Oct. 10, 1950. Decided Nov. 6, Mr. George M. Shkoler, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., respondents. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, as trustee in bankruptcy Inland Waterways, Inc., brought suit against United States District Court Minnesota, Fifth Division, under War Contract Hardship Claims Act, popularly known Lucas adopted August 7, 1946, 60 Stat. 902, 41 U.S.C. § 106 note, U.S.C.A. to recover $328,804.42 losses alleged have been sustained certain contracts with Navy Department production war supplies and materials. On motion, summary judgment was entered States. 80 F.Supp. 90. The Appeals Eighth Circuit affirmed. 176 F.2d 599. turns on interpretation meaning be ascribed parts federal statute. Because we deemed resolution issues important, especially view asserted conflicts decision statute among other courts, certiorari granted. 339 909, 70 572. 2 facts are not dispute. financed by a Government guaranteed loan advances contracts, into several supplemental agreements Department, dated from September 18, 1941, October 30, 1942, submarine chasers plane rearming boats. Little progress had made when, December Waterways filed petition reorganization bankruptcy. Petitioner appointed claims these proceedings based primarily unpaid balance plus interest, cost completing incomplete defective work ships decreased costs resulting changes plans specifications. counterclaim payments due construction, overtime work, specifications wage rates involving increased value partially completed requisitioned its preservation. In support his counterclaim, petitioner submitted court compensation property number invoices purporting bill goods services, all which previously agencies Department. February 20, 1945, executed an agreement compromising upon payment some $16,000 settlement embodied mutual general release broadest terms approved court. 3 initiated efforts secure relief Act 1, 1947, filing claim Contracts Relief Board same matters subject compromise effected two years before proceedings. documents court, itself, were relied showing timely request Act. denied claim. This followed 6 4 only question decided that did file or 14, 'written relief' within We direct our attention correctness holding. Neither nor regulations President thereunder define term. Pertinent set forth margin.1 Shortly after Pearl Harbor, Congress granted 201 First Powers 55 838, 839, 50 U.S.C.App. 611, U.S.C.A.Appendix, power authorize make amendments modifications without regard consideration if 'such action would facilitate prosecution war'. Throughout war, departments utilized provisions alleviate hardships encountered contractors economy geared all-out war. After termination hostilities however, took different views their powers regulations. Some continued exercise those powers, while others position they no longer applicable, since over contract could 'facilitate resulted disparity treatment claimants whose but acted 1945. Whether such contractor accorded depended department he contracted situation motivated congressional action. See S. Rep. 1669, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.,2 accompanying 1477, became legislative history illuminates, purposes at hand, relation Acts. words itself shed further light subject. Like contemplates grace recognition legal rights. It speaks 'equitable * performance subcontracts', 2, 'fair equitable claims'. Further, limits may grant authorized Finally, it presented 'on 1945'. As seen, date one around differing necessitated 7 foregoing considerations think intended term mean written notice prior agency Since there is definition regulations, does show any settled usage Congress, particular form required. But whatever notice, must sufficient apprise being asked extra-legal contracts. attempting establish allow him maintain this suit, has placed much reliance events occurred subsequent enactment. second session Eighty-first passed H.R. 3436, vetoed President. 96 Cong.Rec. 8291, 8658, 9602. Thereafter, 3906, failed enactment another veto 12911, 14652. Petitioner's argument bills intent passing than attributed administrators courts. If anything odds finding 3, supplant contemporaneous enacted Cf. v. Mine Workers, 330 258, 281—282, 67 677, 690, 91 884. 9 do come relief'. property, extras, sought matter grace. They right. demanded contract. such, constituted basis See, e.g., 28 1346, 1346. That himself thought them judicially cognizable evidenced fact included obviously jurisdiction award None accord therefore agree filed, and, therefore, recovery available reach alternative questions. 11 Affirmed. 12 BLACK concurs result. Sec. 1. '* Where supplies, services furnished between 16, 1940, subcontract, latter enter amendment section 1941 hereby authorized, accordance prescribed consider, adjust, settle (not including diminution anticipated profits) incurred fault negligence part subcontracts. 'Sec. 2. (a) arriving fair *. 3. shall considered unless concerned six months approval limited respect 1945 *.' 'This bill, amended, afford financial who suffered cases where received favorable Executive Order 9001 taken capitulation Japanese Government. However, capitulation, involved, should authority then existed, required order insure necessary meet post VJ-day requirements. aid successful contractors. result, process time surrender Government, time, even though case justified surrender.'

Category: 7