Court Opinion

ID: 9447777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:44:16.444543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:11.377204
License: Public Domain

t.t. a mmAAT a' T i BRATTON, Circuit Judge
/ . (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the reversal of the judgment but I think the cause should be remanded with directions to enter judgment for the United States — not remanded for trial.
The crucial provision in the contract (quoted in the opinion of the majority) is one of the type sometimes referred to as a “most favored nations” provision. Under the contract, Utility was to sell and did sell to the United States, a governmental entity, large quantities of electric energy for resale and distribution in a federal housing project. By different transactions, Utility also sold to various cities and towns, governmental entities, large quantities of electric energy for resale and distribution within such municipalities. During the life of the contract with the United States, some of the sales made to cities and towns were at lower rates than those fixed in the contract. But Utility continued to bill the United States at the rates fixed in the contract and payment was made accordingly.
It is my view that the sales to the United States for resale and distribution within the housing project, and the sales made to the cities and towns for resale and distribution within such municipalities, bore sufficient similarity in essence and substance to entitle the United States under the contract to rates at the same level as the lowest rates given to any city or town. If so, the United States is entitled to recover the difference between the amount paid and the less amount which it should have paid. And the facts relating to the sales made to the United States, the facts relating to the amount which the United States paid, and the facts relating to the rates at which sales of energy were made to cities and towns during the life of the contract, were not in controversy. In these circumstances, there is no need for a trial. Instead, the ease is ripe for judgment in favor of the United States for the amount of the overpayment.