Document: 338 U.S. 457 70 S.Ct. 288 94 L.Ed. 256 UNITED STATESv.MOORMAN et al. No. 97. Argued Dec. 6, 1949. Decided Jan. 9, 1950. Mr. Morton Lixtin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. V. J. Bodovitz, Oklahoma City, Okl., respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The questions presented relate to interpretation and validity terms in a government construction contract providing that contractual disputes decisions Secretary War or his authorized representative shall be final binding. 2 respondent partnership entered into standard form with United States grade site proposed aircraft assembly plant. Article provided payment 24 cents per cubic yard grading, satisfactorily completed 'in strict accordance specifications, schedules, drawings, all which are made part hereof * *.' A taxiway was shown on drawings but not located within plant as described specifications. present controversy concerns question whether required this taxiway. 3 On demand Government, graded at point drawings. It then filed claim contracting officer asking extra compensation, 84 instead specified contract. Upon investigation findings fact led him reject respondent's claim. Appeal taken War, whose also considered facts denied According Par. 16(a) such denial is 'final binding upon parties' when contractor claims here work demanded 'outside requirements contract.'1 4 Notwithstanding foregoing provision War's decision binding, brought action Court Claims recover compensation. He there contended right challenge administrative measured by Art. 15 2—16 makes department head's conclusive only over 'questions fact.'2 Respondent, alleging dispute proper 'interpretation' contract, argues how interpreted 'question fact' law.' Adding premise assumption alone governed finality decision, could reconsider facts, make new basis its 'interpretation,' overturn decision. did three. court money judgment computed 59.3 grading. 82 F.Supp. 1010, 113 Ct.Cl. 159. 5 In petitioning certiorari Solicitor General represented plus previous ones had 'weakened narrowed effectiveness well-established policy Government settle without expensive litigation, arising under contracts'; total effect 'add further doubt confusion authority designated officers contracts.'3 We granted certiorari. 810, 58. 6 First. Contractual provisions these have long been used Government. No congressional enactment condemns their creation enforcement. As early 1878 emphatically enforcement vesting power District Quartermaster fix distances, clearly defined transportation based. Kihlberg v. States, 97 398, 1106. Five years later Sweeney 109 618, 344, 27 1053, upheld wall should until an Army other agent certified after inspection 'it respects contracted for.' And Martinsburg & Potomac R. Co. March, 114 549, 1035, 29 255, enforced railroad grading broadly railroad's chief engineer cases 'determine quantity several kinds paid decide every can may arise relative execution 'his estimate conclusive". Id., pages 551—552, page 1036. upholding conclusions emphasized duty trial courts recognize parties rely mutual agreements. Findings contractually agent, even where employed one parties, were held 'conclusive, unless impeached ground fraud, gross mistake necessarily implied bad faith.' 555, 1038. 7 holdings never departed from They stand principle competent contracts established McShain, Inc., 88 284, it refused officer, though agreed final. Claims' holding based conclusion officer's reached 'interpretation drawing, specifications,' incompetent except fact. Its departure law summarily reversed curiam opinion4 citing two many prior subject. One cited 'the supervising architect specifications final.' Merrill-Ruckgaber 241 387, 393, 36 662, 665, 60 1058. 8 Similar agreements enforceable almost state. See collected Note, 54 A.L.R. 1255 seq. state, Indiana, do seem hold differently, permitting engineers persons determinations would wrongfully deprive controversies decided courts. 1270—1271. McShain case we rejected contention adopt rule like Indiana's now. true intention submit determination outside manifest plain language. Mercantile Trust Hensey, 205 298, 309, 535, 539, 51 811, 10 Ann.Cas. 572. But does mean hostility justify blindness intent method settlement disputes. Nor agreement frustrated judicial contracts. If themselves deprived privilege making anticipatory disputes, deprivation come legislative branch government. 9 Second. turn determine show authorize representatives type controversy. fact, while much said argument presents need consider argument. For cannot remove ambit That section expressly covers who, here, 'considers any demands incorporated they legal do. neither conflict nor limited 15, latter excepts coverage special methods 'otherwise specifically contract.' oft-repeated ample reason why provide wholly separate fact-limited 15. To so 'intend' distortion interpretative process. language clear. ambiguities injected supportable reasoning. states draftsmen use involved binding.' reconsidering error. stand. 11 Reversed. 12 DOUGLAS took no consideration case. 'If considers if he ruling inspectors unfair, undue delay, demand, action, ruling, protest thereto writing stating detail objections. thereupon promptly investigate complaint furnish writing, thereon. satisfied may, thirty days, appeal duly *' Paragraph 'Disputes.—Except otherwise concerning subject written 30 days head concerned representative, thereto. meantime diligently proceed directed.' These representations petition substantially identical review former reported 284. there, urged, seemed 'culmination recent tendency whittle away contracts.' insisted 'At least, submit, effective character circumscribed Court.' oral opinion. 308 512, 134, 437.

Category: 8