Case: COLLEGE POINT BOAT CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: College Point Boat Corp. v. United States
Decision Date: 1925-01-19
Docket Number: 
Citation: 60 Ct. Cl. 1025
Volume: 60
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: COLLEGE POINT BOAT CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: 
Pages: 1025–1026

Head Matter:
COLLEGE POINT BOAT CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES
[58 C. Cls. 380; 267 U. S. 12]
Judgment was rendered against the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:
1. Claimant’s preparations to perform its contract for furnishing-supplies to the Navy were stopped as a result of steps taken hy the Navy Department, for the purpose of avoiding useless production, without manifested intention to cancel the contract and without giving the notice requisite to the exercise of the unconditional right of cancellation existing under the act of June 15, 1917 (Bussell Motor Gar Go. v. United States, 261 U. S. 514), pursuant to which tlie contract was made. Held, that there was no cancellation as a matter of law, and that the stoppage of performance was an anticipatory breach.
2. The Government’s right of cancellation, under the above statute, is continuing and not lost by delay in exercising it.
3. This continuing right of cancellation, limiting the value of the other party’s right to require performance, curtails his damages for an anticipatory breach by the Government, so that prospective profits are not recoverable.
4. There is no general rule that a party can not exercise a right to cancel a contract when himself in default.
5. Held, that a default on the part of the Government was insubstantial and did not render inequitable delayed exercise of its right to cancel the contract.
6. The right to cancel conferred by the act of June 15, 1917, is not made dependent on a tender of 75% of the amount offered by the Government in settlement.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice BRANDeis
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 19, 1925.