Court Opinion

ID: 9611533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:57:49.042186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:38.043439
License: Public Domain

JONES, Chief Judge
(dissenting in part).
I do not think there is sufficient evidence in the case to justify the court in reform*592ing the contract on the basis of mutual mistake of fact. Both parties knew that a wage adjustment was at least under consideration. While the plaintiff may not have known that the order increasing the wage rate had been concurred in by the Navy, which was a step necessary to its binding effect, the contract was signed without a provision for an adjustment in price in the event of such a change. The evidence of an oral promise to permit a price increase if and when the Zone Stabilization Board Agreement was ratified by the Navy is not sufficiently clear when linked to the other circumstances recited in the majority opinion to justify the court in reforming that part of the contract..
I would disallow recovery of the additional labor costs of $16,171.44.
WHITAKER, J., agrees with the foregoing opinion.