Court Opinion

ID: 9447462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:35:46.659258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:03.407010
License: Public Domain

LARAMORE, Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the majority. I believe the proper and only unit price *838that could be paid for the ore delivered under the contract was the lower figure to which the Mexican peso had been devalued.
Paragraph 4-b of the special terms, conditions, and specifications stated that the unit price of $0.93 was based on the then current exchange rate of 8.65 Mexican pesos to one United States dollar, and then provided that “any increase or decrease in such rate of exchange * * * shall be for the account of the Government.” This provision could only have one reasonable meaning. The phrase “any increase or decrease in such rate of exchange,” could only have referred to any future expansion or contraction of the ratio representing the relationship between the value of the peso and the value of the United States dollar. The phrase, “shall be for the account of the Government,” could only reasonably mean that the United States should benefit from any expansion and bear the disadvantage of any contraction of the exchange rate ratio that might occur, the unit price in United States money being adjusted upward or downward to reflect any fluctuation in the exchange rate. Thus when the Mexican peso was devalued the United States was making over-payments solely due to a mistake of fact regarding the current rate of the peso in relation to the value of the United States dollar. To permit payment at any rate other than based on the devalued .peso would be to change the contract provision to the detriment of the Government, which of course cannot be accomplished by any officer or agent of the Government. United States v. American Sales Corporation, D.C., 27 F.2d 389, 391-392, affirmed 5 Cir., 32 F.2d 141, certiorari denied 280 U.S. 574, 50 S.Ct. 29, 74 L.Ed. 625.
Furthermore, by simply reading the contract the plaintiff assignee could and should have known that payment would be made on the basis of the then value of the Mexican peso. Just because the as-signee sat idle and accepted payment at a higher value would not obliterate the terms of the contract. If the assignee bank did not know of paragraph 4-b it should have, and if the assignee bank did not know of the devaluation of the peso it should have. Its inaction could not give rise to a change in the contract such as to permit recovery here.
I would dismiss plaintiff’s petition.
WHITAKER, Judge, joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.