finding no breach of Corps’s duty of good faith and fair dealing because Corps — as a separate government agency— could not be charged with knowledge of location and wage-rate impact of unrelated project
How later courts described this case
- finding no breach of Corps’s duty of good faith and fair dealing because Corps — as a separate government agency— could not be charged with knowledge of location and wage-rate impact of unrelated project
- finding that Corps — as a separate government agency— could not be charged with knowledge of location and wage-rate impact of unrelated project
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARAMORE, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in this case, when the same was decided on defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, No. 141-57, decided April 8, 1959. In other words, I believe plaintiff cannot recover in this action because of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Binghamton Construction Co., 347 U.S. 171, 176-178 , 74 S.Ct. 438 , 98 L.Ed. 594 wherein the Court stated:
“The Act itself confers no litigable rights on a bidder for a Gov *392 ernment construction contract. The language of the Act and its legislative history plainly show that it was not enacted to benefit contractors, but rather to protect their employees from substandard earnings by fixing a floor under wages on Government projects. Congress sought to accomplish this result by directing the -Secretary of Labor to determine, on the basis of prevailing rates in the locality, the appropriate minimum wages for each project. The correctness of the Secretary’s determination is not open to attack on judicial review.
■X* ‘X- ‘X* * w ’X*
“On its face, the Act is a minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction workers. The Act does not authorize or contemplate any assurance to a successful bidder that the specified minima will in fact be the prevailing rates. Indeed, its requirement that the contractor pay “not less” than the specified minima presupposes the possibility that the contractor may have to pay higher rates. Under these circumstances, even assuming a representation by the Government as to the prevailing rate, respondent’s reliance on the representation in computing its bid cannot be said to have been justified.”
In all other respects I agree with the majority opinion.