# James H. Clack v. The United States

> United States Court of Claims · May 10, 1968 · 395 F.2d 773

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453680

## Case

- **Full name:** James H. CLACK v. the UNITED STATES
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** May 10, 1968
- **Citations:** 395 F.2d 773; 184 Ct. Cl. 40; 1968 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 112
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Davis
- **Judges:** Cowen, Laramore, Durfee, Davis, Collins, Skelton, Nichols, Motion, Cross-Motion, Summary
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453680

## Opinion text

*783 DAVIS, Judge
(dissenting in part):
I join the court’s opinion on Items A and H but disagree as to Item G. In its discussion of Item H the court recognizes the established principle that “constructive changes” fall under the standard changes article. With respect to Item G, the defendant’s directive that the road be made available to Atkins and the Humboldt Fir Company seems to me to have been clearly such a “constructive change”. Assuming that under the contract as originally drafted the plaintiff had the right to full control of the road until its completion, the Government’s instruction that the road be opened for log-removal was a change in the specifications calling for an equitable adjustment under the changes clause. This was the most typical of “constructive changes” — despite its protests, the plaintiff was told to alter its intentions and to do things differently from its original expectation under the plans and specifications. See WRB Corp. v. United States, 183 Ct.Cl.-, Slip op. at 4-5 (April 1968). On this view, the Board could grant relief “under the contract” and its factual findings must be accepted if adequately supported. As the court concedes, there was substantial evidence to sustain the administrative determination, and therefore I would dismiss Item G along with the other two.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9453680. Public record. Not legal advice.