Document: 329 U.S. 64 67 S.Ct. 154 91 L.Ed. 44 UNITED STATESv.HOWARD P. FOLEY CO., Inc. No. 50. Argued Oct. 25, 1946. Decided Nov. Mr.A. Devitt Vaneck, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Alexander Heron, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 The Court Claims rendered a judgment respondent and against Government an asserted breach construction contract. Ct.Cl., 63 F.Supp. 209, 215. We granted Government's petition certiorari which alleged that Claims' decision was in direct conflict with Crook v. United States, 270 4, 46 184, 70 438 States Rice, 317 61, 120, 87 53. hold contention is correct. 2 respondent, electrical contractor, agreed fixed fee to supply materials install field lighting system at National Airport, Gravelly Point, Virg nia, then under construction. agreement embodied standard form Respondent promised complete job within 120 days after notice proceed. In fact not finished until 277 given. delay came about this way. site airport being built up from water by fast but unique method hydraulic dredging. As portions earth base runways taxiways settled, they were be paved shoulders 'rough-graded.' segments work finished, move in, wire them, fixtures. dredging took longer than engineers had anticipated, because some dredged soil, proving too unstable taxiways, replaced. This turn delayed completion runway sections each equipment segment could installed. 157 resulted consequently long irregular intervals between times when these made available do its job. But delays, apparently have days. 3 considered breached contract failing make time certain overhead administrative expenses incurred during consequent period delay.1 4 no single word, clause, or sentence does expressly covenant any particular time. Cf. Blair, 321 730, 733, 734, 820, 822, 88 1039. It suggested obligation can inverted into promise cause performance beyond negligence. even if provision standing alone stretched mean obligated itself exercise highest degree diligence utmost good faith efforts promptly available, facts case would show such undertaking. For found representatives did 'with great, unusual, diligence,' 'no fault attributed them.' Consequently, cannot held liable unless interpreted imply unqualified warranty available. 5 find we are consistent our Rice decisions, supra. pertinent provisions instant are, every respect here material, substantially same as those former cases impose on pay damages delay. Here, cases, there several showed parties only anticipated might finish originally planned, also provided advance protect contractor consequences governmental delay, should it occur. reserved right changes interruption required coordinate his other done site, clearly contemplated he take intermittently completed paved. Article 9 entitled 'Delays-Damages,' set out procedure govern both respondent's completion, whether caused Govern ent, causes. If terminate contract, over work, sureties liable. Or, alternative, collect liquidated damages. If, hand, due 'acts government' specified events, including 'unforeseeable causes,' outlined extending relieving him penalties termination 6 making contractors terms imposed liability. Those contracts, practically identical one here, none. See distinction prior point. seems this: prime subcontractor; must thereafter governed; exercised right; impossible ultimately subcontractor their time; since changes, knew this, contractually responsible Therefore know 'provisional' whereas reason believe certain. ample indication extrinsic delays remedies therefor provided. lacked additional read been read. distinction, significant difference. like others, shows for. question all is, obligate solely available? again reasons elaborated decisions. 7 Reversed. 8 REED, FRANKFURTER, JACKSON dissent. admitted given 'notice proceed' legal forth court below whose affirm. awarded wages paid supervisory employees who stood intervals, account unemployment similar taxes.

Category: 7