Source: http://openjurist.org/1/f3d/1241/part-inc-v-tennessee-valley-authority
Timestamp: 2015-10-09 14:04:09
Document Index: 555107069

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21', 'art 21']

1 F3d 1241 Part Inc v. Tennessee Valley Authority | OpenJurist
1 F. 3d 1241 - Part Inc v. Tennessee Valley Authority Home
1 F3d 1241 Part Inc v. Tennessee Valley Authority 1 F.3d 1241
PART 21, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,v.TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Before: KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges; and FORESTER, District Judge.*
Part 21, Inc. appeals the summary judgment that the district court granted in favor of Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") in this contract dispute action. Part 21 argues on appeal that material issues of fact exist because it contends that the district court misinterpreted the terms of the contract between the parties. We affirm.
Part 21 and TVA entered into a contract effective April 17, 1989 in which Part 21 agreed to provide services in support of TVA's Automated Procurement Development Project. The contract did not set a minimum amount of services that TVA would request from Part 21; rather, the contract gave TVA the option of using Part 21's services by issuing task assignment orders. TVA issued only one order with an original ending date of October 30, 1989. The parties later extended the ending date to January 31, 1990. Pursuant to that order, Part 21 applied its computer software program to TVA operations.
During the fall of 1989, Part 21 submitted a proposal to perform additional work under the contract. During negotiations about the additional work, TVA performed a preliminary audit of Part 21's books and determined that Part 21 had overstated its costs. TVA then decided to discontinue negotiations with Part 21 about additional work and allowed the existing order to expire on the January 31, 1990 ending date. TVA later performed an additional audit and concluded that Part 21 had overcharged TVA. Therefore, TVA exercised its setoff rights under the contract against Part 21.
Part 21 filed this lawsuit against TVA on October 12, 1990 for breach of contract. Part 21 also alleged that TVA was responsible for termination expenses in connection with the ending of the contract