v2915-127

ance of a condition such as this "determination," which

is wholly unnecessary.

ARGUMENT

The CoNTEiACTUAL Provisions

Appellant's argument that the Court cannot re-

make a contractual agreement between the parties is

conceded. However, in the instant case, we have the

typical contract dispute situation, i.e., that the con-

tractual documents are not complete and free from

ambiguity. Appellant centers all its attention on para-

graph 2 of the General Conditions, R-30, and argues

that this paragraph allows appellee to recover no more

than its "out-of-pocket" expenses, which were only the

cost of readvertising the buildings and the amount

of the deposit accompanying the offer, or $355. The

last sentence of that paragraph is argued to be in-

applicable inasmuch as the evidence did not show that

appellant received a determination by the Contracting

Officer of the exact amount of damages.

It is important first, to consider that paragraph

2 in only part of the "whole" contract. That para-

graph is headed "Performance Security" and that

clearly shows the scope of its intended operation. The

references as to "expenses incurred by the govern-

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2915

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2915

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2915#page/n126/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

officer, paragraph, contract, purchaser, contracting, price, government, breach, determination, provision, purchase, performance, expenses, conditions, sentence

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

contracting officer., contracting officer, para graph, purchase price, public housing, purchase price., pur chase, performance security., performance security, liquidated damages, housing administration, fide established, established commercial, commission percentage, commercial agencies

Document Status: UGLY