Opinion

Dravo Corp. v. United States

  • 93 Ct. Cl. 270
  • 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 137
  • 1941 WL 4610
Court
United States Court of Claims
Filed
Mar 3, 1941
Status
Published
Author
Whitaker
On the bench
Green, Littleton, Whaley, Whitaker
Cited by
1 cases

The opinion

Whitaker, Judge,

concurring:

I concur in the result, because of the provisions of article 15 of the contract conferring jurisdiction on the defendant’s contracting officer to settle all disputes and making his decision “final and conclusive.” Although it is surprizing that they should do so, it is nevertheless within the power of parties to agree to leave to one of them the settlement of any disputes under the contract if they choose. This is what the parties did in this case, and they are bound by it. The contracting officer has interpreted the word “overtops” to mean flooding. I think that interpretation wrong, but under the contract this court is without power to substitute its construction for that of the so-called arbiter agreed on by the parties.

I think the plaintiff is entitled to recover except for this provision.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.