holding that although the original grounds for terminating the contract were not valid, the contract could have been cancelled pursuant to the termination for convenience clause and therefore damages would be limited to those allowable under that provision
How later courts described this case
- holding that although the original grounds for terminating the contract were not valid, the contract could have been cancelled pursuant to the termination for convenience clause and therefore damages would be limited to those allowable under that provision
- contracting officer’s decision to terminate “in the best interests of the United States” within contractual authority is conclusive in “the absence of bad faith or clear abuse of discretion”
- stating “the court should ordinarily impose the binding stamp of nullity only when the illegality is plain”
- “The contracting officer on plaintiffs contract probably thought that he was cancelling the agreement for illegality. That excuse was not a valid justification as we now know, but just as in College Point Boat Corp., a good ground did exist in the far-reaching right to terminate under the termination article.” (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARAMORE, Judge
(concurring).
I agree with the majority opinion. I write this because of my concurrence in the case of Goldwasser v. United States, Ct.Cl., No. 477-61, 325 F.2d 722 .
In my opinion, the Goldwasser case is clearly distinguishable from the present case. The contract in the case of Goldwasser was, in my opinion, terminated for default. In that situation my belief is that plaintiff Goldwasser should have an opportunity to prove a breach thereof and resulting damages, if any.
The contract in the instant case was not terminated for default, and I believe under the circumstances of this case the correct measure of damages should be based on the cost resulting from the termination provision of the contract.