Cascade Pacific International v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
773 F.2d 287 (1985)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Cascade Pacific International (Cascade) (plaintiff) entered into a fixed-price supply contract with the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide spring hinges meeting government specifications. Cascade failed to meet contract requirements, and the GSA terminated Cascade’s contract for default. The GSA then reprocured the contract, received several competitive bids, and awarded the reprocured contract to Mallin, the lowest-price bidder. The reprocurement contract with Mallin carried a higher cost than the original contract with Cascade. The GSA charged Cascade for the excess reprocurement costs. Cascade appealed to the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board), arguing that the GSA improperly assessed the excess reprocurement costs. The Board held that the GSA failed to meet its burden of proof to recover excess reprocurement costs because the GSA failed to submit a copy of its reprocurement contract with Mallin into evidence; however, as an alternative to awarding excess reprocurement costs, the Board ordered Cascade to pay breach-of-contract damages equal to the excess reprocurement costs the GSA incurred from Cascade’s default. Cascade appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the Board should not have imposed breach-of-contract damages as an alternative to GSA’s failed claim for excess reprocurement costs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
