Case Name: MAX SIFF AND ALBERT L. SIFF, TRADING AS SIFF BROTHERS COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1925-02-09
Citations: 60 Ct. Cl. 331
Docket Number: No. D-766
Parties: MAX SIFF AND ALBERT L. SIFF, TRADING AS SIFF BROTHERS COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 331–333

Head Matter:
MAX SIFF AND ALBERT L. SIFF, TRADING AS SIFF BROTHERS COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. D-766.
Decided February 9, 1925]
On Demurrer to Petition
Contract; cancellation; settlement. — ■Where a contract was cancelled by the (Government, and a cancellation agreement entered into between the parties by which the plaintiff was paid a specified i sum of money stated to be “ full and final compensation for articles of wort delivered, services rendered, and expenditures incurred by the contractor under the original contract,” plaintiff can not recover an additional amount for certain items arising under the same contract which, it is contended, were not passed upon at the time of the execution of the release.
The Reporter's statement of the case:
Mr. W. F. Norris, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the demurrer.
Mr. Raymond M. Hudson opposed.
The petition sets out the following statement of facts:
On or about July 3, 1918, the plaintiffs entered into a yerbal agreement with officers of the Quartermaster Corps, U. S. Army, to manufacture 42,000 pairs of trousers at 85 cents per pair, the Government to furnish silesia and other materials (as had been done under a contract previously performed), and the contractors not to serge or double stitch the seams. A written contract was promised, but meanwhile the plaintiffs manufactured a great many trousers and delivered nearly 3,500 pairs.
On or about September 9, 1919, the said officers presented the plaintiffs a written contract, as promised, which was dated August 28, 1918, named á price of 75 cents per pair, required seams to be serged and double stitched, and did not require the Government to furnish silesia.
The plaintiffs signed the contract, at the same time protesting against the three variances from the verbal agreement. They were assured that after investigation they would be paid a fair and reasonable price, that the silesia would be furnished, that they would not have to serge and double stitch the seams, and that allowances would be made for doing so.
The plaintiffs proceeded with the work until it was suspended by the Government after the armistice. A cancellation agreement was entered into November 12, 1920 (Exhibit B to the petition), which provided that the United States should pay to the plaintiffs $1,639.45, which, together with payment for the finished articles or work theretofore delivered and not paid for, should “ constitute full and final compensation for articles or work delivered, services rendered, and expenditures incurred” under the original contract, and that the plaintiffs released and discharged the United States from all claims arising from the said original contract.
Plaintiffs thereupon presented their claim to the Secretary of War, and after a hearing before the Board of Contract Adjustment the sum of $1,639.45, named in the cancellation agreement, was admitted to be due them, and was paid.
The items claimed in this suit are for serging and double stitching the seams of the trousers; for furnishing silesia; for silesia, thread and buttons on hand when the contract was canceled; for the difference between 75 and 85 cents per pair on 27,300 pair of trousers delivered; and for machinery purchased and leases entered into for the completion of the contract.
The petition was dismissed, and with the order was filed the following
Appealed.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM BX THE COURT
The court concludes that the demurrer should be sustained for the reasons:
1. The alleged verbal negotiations were merged in the written contract, and the final agreement under which plaintiffs were paid $1,639.45 is a release and discharge of all claims growing out of the contract. The receipt of this sum is alleged in the petition.
2. The claims were presented to the Secretary of War and the Board of Contract Adjustment and were fully considered. (See Decisions Board of Contract Adjustment, Vol. V, p. 567, and Vol. VII, p. 783.) The Secretary's order affirming the ruling of the board was made October 29, 1920. The release, Exhibit B to the petition, was executed by the plaintiffs November 12, 1920.
3. There is nothing in the contract obligating the Government to pay the items claimed in this suit.