United States v. Progressive Enterprises
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
418 F.Supp. 662 (1976)
- Written by Sarah Larkin, JD
Facts
Progressive Enterprises, Inc. (Progressive) (defendant), in anticipation of winning a contract with the United States, sought a cast iron deaerator. Crane Company (Crane) (plaintiff) submitted an offer to supply the machine for $5,238.00, but required acceptance within 15 days. Progressive submitted its bid to the United States and won the contract, though it did so well beyond the 15-day period specified by Crane. Shortly thereafter Progressive affirmed the quoted price with Crane for the deaerator. Progressive then accepted the offer to sell by submitting a purchase order. Crane later contacted Progressive to inform it that it would need to pay $7,350.00 for the deaerator due to “rapidly escalating material costs.” Progressive submitted a second purchase order reflecting the new price. Crane delivered the machine to Progressive, but Progressive only paid the original agreed-upon price. Progressive asserted that Crane did not have a valid reason for modifying the contract. Crane brought suit for the difference in price, plus interest. Crane argued that Progressive acquiesced in the change and that its second purchase order effectively modified the contract.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clarke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.