Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Joint Venture

497 F.3d 1339 (2007)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Joint Venture

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
497 F.3d 1339 (2007)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Donald Winter, the Secretary of the Navy (Navy) (plaintiff), entered into a fixed-price contract with Cath-dr/Balti Joint Venture (Cath) (defendant) to renovate a historical dental research facility at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. The contract explicitly stated that only the Contracting Officer had the authority to modify the contract terms, including terms regarding price, quality, quantity, or delivery times. The contract further stated that, if necessary, equitable adjustments would be made to the contract’s timing and compensation terms to account for the Contracting Officer’s modifications. Shortly after Cath started work on the project, the Navy assigned Tim Meland as the project manager and the resident officer in charge of contracts (ROICC). The Navy told Cath that Meland was responsible for administering the contract and that any modifications to the project required Meland’s authorization. During the course of the contract, Meland authorized several modifications at Cath’s request. After Cath completed the renovation work, it submitted a cumulative request to the Contracting Officer for equitable adjustments related to those modifications. The Contracting Officer issued a written decision accepting Cath’s claims; however, the Navy overruled the Contracting Officer’s decision and denied Cath’s claims. Cath appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board). The Board ruled that Cath was entitled to an equitable adjustment in compensation, holding that Meland, as the project manager and RIOCC, was authorized to modify the contract terms to address issues that arose during construction. The Navy appealed, arguing that only the Contracting Officer, not Meland, was authorized to modify the contract terms. Cath challenged, arguing that even if Meland did not have authority to modify the contract terms, the Contracting Officer ratified Meland’s modifications by accepting Cath’s equitable adjustment claims.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)

Dissent (Prost, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership