DJ Manufacturing Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
86 F.3d 1130 (1996)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
DJ Manufacturing Corporation (DJ) (plaintiff) entered into a contract with the United States (government) (defendant), under which DJ would provide combat field packs to troops participating in Operation Desert Storm. Under the contract, liquidated damages would be assessed at one-fifteenth of 1 percent of the contract price for each day that delivery of an article was delayed past the specified delivery deadline. DJ missed several delivery deadlines. The government withheld payment of approximately $663,000, which represented a reduction of about 8 percent from the total contract price. DJ sued the government to recover the withheld amount, arguing that the contract’s liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty. Both parties moved for summary judgment. DJ presented an affidavit from its president stating that the contract’s liquidated-damages rate was a standard rate used in many government contracts rather than a rate selected specifically for the parties’ contract. The government’s contracting officer stated that the liquidated damages clause was included in the contract because of the need to move war-related items such as DJ’s combat field packs into the possession of troops as soon as possible. The United States Court of Federal Claims entered summary judgment in favor of the government. DJ appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
