Case Involving Breach of Contract

A breach of a contract implies a violation of agreement terms as stipulated in the contract for both parties. The case in question involves the United States vs. Utah Construction and Mining Co.

Link to article https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/394/

Case Facts

The United States government had issued a construction contract to construct a facility for the Atomic Energy Commission in the year 1953. Upon completion in the year 1955, the contractor invoked the contained dispute clause, asking for more payment and time to complete the contract. The Advisory Board of Contract Appeals rejected the matter. It asserted that a subcontractor incurred the increased costs and that the delays experienced were caused by a conflict over the quality of government concrete aggregate (Cook, 1999). Equally, the claims that were tabled required no more funding according to the court but required a time extension for the project. The court board also ruled the appeal was untimely, which meant that no monetary award could be accorded to the contractor. The court, in its findings, concluded that the two claims presented, Pier Drilling and Shield Window, were primarily for breach of contract. The court ordered a trial De novo chance for the factual issues in the claims to be heard. In the case of United States vs. Utah, it is evident that there was a contract that each party needed to respect for operations to run smoothly.

Issues in the Case

Issue: The contractor sued the government for breach of contract claiming more funds from the state and time to complete the contract.

The case had an issue that needed immediate attention as a way of solving the dispute between the contractor and the government. The most significant matter that arose in the contract is the fact that Utah bought substandard concrete from the government, which prompted the state to suspend operations. This is a breach of contract between the two parties, which can attract litigation (Cuneo, 1967). For instance, the fact that the contractor had experienced delays due to the government’s poor concrete aggregate raises concerns on the contract. In the event, Utah had to incur extra costs, which prompted the contactor to appeal to the board of contractors. To the contractor, the government was breaching the contract by failing to avail the necessary materials and finances to complete the project in a timely manner.

Breach of Contract Elements

The rule for breach of contract in the case lies in both parties, striking a contract to build a facility. In the contract, terms are clear, including the total cost of the project and the duration that should be taken to completion. The government’s directive to suspend construction operations for some time is a sign of breach of contract as the two parties never agreed to do so. The contract required that the contractor use appropriate materials to construct a standardized facility (Sachter, 1968). The use of dirty and inappropriate concrete is a breach of contract, which guarantees the suspension of the agreement terms (Sachter, 1968). The first element of the contract is the binding agreement between the two parties, the government and Utah Construction and Mining Co. Equally, violation of the contract is another essential element of breach of contractual terms. The rule of the contract is based on the issue of the existence of an agreement and violation of the same agreement, which is evident in the case of Utah and the United States.

Meeting of the Contractual Terms

Both parties in the case ought to have respected the terms of agreement to successful completion of the project. The plaintiff, in a case, can fail to meet the obligations of the contract, which jeopardizes the position of the contract s noted from the case. For instance, the plaintiff has contracted a third party to execute operations that should be done by the plaintiff (Sachter, 1968). This is a sign of breach of contract, which prompted the board of contractors to reject the appeal tabled. Equally, the use of inappropriate concrete in the construction process is a breach of contract as the government expects high-quality facilities. The plaintiff should have won the case as the concerns raised are valid within the contract terms. For instance, the additional costs on the project should be met by the state as the construction authority.

References

Cook, S. M. (1999). Third-Party Consent under the United States and Utah Constitutions: Should Utah Adopt the Federal Standard. BYU L. Rev., 381.

Cuneo, G. A. (1967). The Administrative Procedure Act Does Not Apply to Boards of Contract Appeals. Public Contract Law Journal, 18-37.

Sachter, J. (1968). Resolution of Disputes Under United States Government Contracts: Problems and Proposals. Pub. Cont. LJ, 2, 363