# Walsh v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · February 5, 1952 · 102 F. Supp. 589

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9611533

## Case

- **Full name:** WALSH Et Al. v. UNITED STATES
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** February 5, 1952
- **Citations:** 102 F. Supp. 589; 121 Ct. Cl. 546
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Jones
- **Judges:** Jones, Littleton, Whitaker, Madden, Howell
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9611533

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a mutual mistake when the parties both erroneously believed the minimum wage rate was lower than it was

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9611533. Public record. Not legal advice.