# George H. Whike Construction Co. v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · May 1, 1956 · 140 F. Supp. 560

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757254

## Case

- **Full name:** GEORGE H. WHIKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. the UNITED STATES
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** May 1, 1956
- **Citations:** 140 F. Supp. 560; 135 Ct. Cl. 126; 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 150
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Laramore
- **Judges:** Jones, Littleton, Whitaker, Madden, Laramore
- **Cited by:** 15 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/9757254

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the lawyers “had such positions and were acting in such circumstances as to lead any normal person to regard them as having capacity to act in the matter”

## Opinion text

LARAMORE, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent for the following reasons. Executive Order 9301 and the regulations under it were acts of the defendant in its sovereign capacity. Damages cannot flow from sovereign acts unless Congress waives the Government’s sovereign immunity.
Plaintiff, at the time of preparing its bid, knew of Executive Order 9301 and the possibility of extra costs resulting from compliance. Instead of figuring possible costs in preparing its bid, plaintiff chose to ignore the possibility and thereby became the lowest bidder. However, plaintiff sought to take care of the contingency by submitting a qualified bid, which could have been rejected by defendant. Defendant chose to negotiate the qualification out of the bid by entering into a contract which eliminated the qualification. Plaintiff signed the contract which pi’ovided that if more than 8 hours a day was wox’ked on the job it would be without additional cost to the Government. The contract px'ovided that it was subject to Executive Order 9301 and the regulations under it.
I believe the plaintiff is bound by the contract as signed and all prior discussions between the parties were merged into the written contx-act. Furthermore, the persons with whom plaintiff talked prior, to signing the contract were without authority to waive the sovereign immunity and lacked authority to bind the Government by any oral promises made.
I would dismiss the petition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757254. Public record. Not legal advice.