Document: 350 U.S. 148 76 S.Ct. 219 100 L.Ed. 149 REX TRAILER COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 46. Argued Dec. 5, 1955. Decided Jan. 9, 1956. Mr. Gustav H. Dongus, Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner. Melvin Richter, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner contends that this action brought by Government to recover $2,000 on each five counts a complaint based § 26(b)(1) Surplus Property Act 19441 places it twice in jeopardy violation Fifth Amendment. In an earlier proceeding had pleaded nolo contendere five-count indictment bottomed same transactions and paid fines aggregate amount $25,000. present case District Court granted Government's motion summary judgment, Appeals affirmed, 218 F.2d 880. We certiorari, 349 937, 75 784, resolve asserted conflict between decisions Courts Appeals.2 2 At close World War II was faced with problem disposing vast quantities surplus war materials. A large part property, valued at many billions dollars, needed satisfy civilian demand caused wartime shortages consumer goods. To facilitate regulate orderly disposal Congress passed 1944, 58 Stat. 765. The stated purposes statute included reestablishment returning veterans business, agricultural, or professional life, discouragement speculation elimination unusual excessive profits speculators. concern is emphasized its 1946 Amendment Act, 60 168, which gave priority purchase second only Federal Government, authorized Administrator assign highest certain items. This legislation thus afforded opportunity goods not available elsewhere fair price good credit terms. benefits were great value millions men women life just after war. 3 With background mind we may turn facts case. June 1947 Rex Trailer Company purchased motor vehicles from Assets Administration Tinker Field, Oklahoma. nonpriority right under Act; but, fraudulent use names persons possessing veteran rights, able vehicles. Admittedly, terms violated, but record does show petitioner's gain fraud. United States limited itself recovery sum overt acts alleged complaint. 4 Petitioner's sole contention provides criminal penalty and, having once been convicted fined question, cannot again be subjected punishment. question our decision, then, whether civil penal, 'Congress impose both sanction respect act omission; double clause prohibits merely punishing twice, attempting time punish criminally, offense.' Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 391, 399, 630, 633, 82 917. 5 conclude here nature. has make contracts hold dispose protection property resort remedies as private person. Cotton States, 11 How. 229, 13 675. Liquidated damages are well-known remedy, fact utilized form numerous situations. all building contracts, example, required insertion liquidated-damage 'shall conclusive binding upon parties' without proof 'actual specific sustained * *.' 32 326, 40 U.S.C. 269*. Liquidated-damage provisions, when reasonable, regarded penalties, Engineering & Contracting Co., 234 236, 241, 34 843, 845, 1294, therefore 6 26 provided three alternative remedies. first plus damage sustained; permits 'as liquidated damages' consideration agreed upon; third retain received. These set out consecutively numbered subsections 26(b). All recognized before bill passed,3 conclusion inescapable nature designed serve purpose. Further, 26(d) that: '(t)he section shall addition other penalties law.' 7 ex rel. Marcus Hess, 317 537, 63 379, 87 443, involved provision False Claims R.S. §§ 5438, 3490, 31 231, U.S.C.A. essentially equivalent 26(b)(1).4 Marcus, here, defendant prosecution transaction. rejected held remedial since unable say would 'do more than afford government complete indemnity injuries done it.' page 549, 387. concluding, inherent difficulty choosing proper give full restitution Congress.' 552, 388. 8 It insisted, however, failure allege precludes here. But there no requirement, statutory judicial, shown, Marcus.5 comparable provisions fix compensation anticipated loss. As Priebe Sons 332 407, 411—412, 68 123, 126, 92 32, 'serve particularly useful function uncertain unmeasurable, contracts. *' And shown fatal. Section accomplishes intended result authorizing separate lump damages. 9 obvious injury resulted Company's trucks. precluded bona fide sales veterans, decreased number agencies, tended promote undesirable speculation.6 resulting difficult impossible ascertain, provide measure such circumstances. On said fixed so unreasonable transformed what clearly remedy into penalty. 10 Affirmed. FRANKFURTER concurs judgment substantially reasons given him his support decision. 553, 765, 780, 50 U.S.C.Appendix (1946 ed.) 1635, now 489, pertinent part: '(b) Every person who engage cause used engaged any trick, scheme, device, purpose securing obtaining, aiding secure obtain, payment, agency connection disposition enters agreement, combination, conspiracy do foregoing— '(1) pay act, have reason thereof, together costs suit; '(2) shall, if elect, damages, equal agency; '(3) Unied restore secured obtained property. '(d) considering limitations contained 28 2462, applied Circuit Weaver, 207 796, 797, Sixth penal Witherspoon, 211 858. referring these Senate Committee Military Affairs described them providing 'the liability false, fraudulent, fictitious activities, conceal misrepresent material facts, intent defraud *. option electing among different measures damages.' S.Rep. 1057, 78th Cong., 2d Sess. 13—14. Now 41 256a. defrauder forfeit 2,000, addition, doing committing forfeiture sued suit.' holding compensatory decided January 18, 1943. employed virtually identical language 26(b)(1), enacted October 3, 1944. Under circumstances very words kind Act. several projects case, fraud discovered payments withheld. trial defendants urged could instances where actual shown. preclude statute. F.Supp. 197, 218. affirmed See Rohleder, Cir., 157 129. seems quite probable also element unjust enrichment purchases. silent point considered arriving willing veteran's strongly suggests purchasers regulations published CFR Supp.) 8302.8(d), 8302.11, provided: 'Disposal agencies acquired claimants. Such greater lowest offered trade level acquisition claimant, examining competitive bids, acceptable bid.'

Category: 0