finding a mutual mistake when the parties both erroneously believed the minimum wage rate was lower than it was
How later courts described this case
- finding a mutual mistake when the parties both erroneously believed the minimum wage rate was lower than it was
- because of mutual ignorance of a rate change that had been made shortly before the contract was signed, the contractor could recover the increased wage costs although it was a fixed price contract
- the parties erroneously believed the minimum wage rate was a certain amount, even though it had increased earlier
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JONES, Chief Judge
(dissenting in part).
I do not think there is sufficient evidence in the case to justify the court in reform *592 ing the contract on the basis of mutual mistake of fact. Both parties knew that a wage adjustment was at least under consideration. While the plaintiff may not have known that the order increasing the wage rate had been concurred in by the Navy, which was a step necessary to its binding effect, the contract was signed without a provision for an adjustment in price in the event of such a change. The evidence of an oral promise to permit a price increase if and when the Zone Stabilization Board Agreement was ratified by the Navy is not sufficiently clear when linked to the other circumstances recited in the majority opinion to justify the court in reforming that part of the contract..
I would disallow recovery of the additional labor costs of $16,171.44.
WHITAKER, J., agrees with the foregoing opinion.