United States v. Spearin
United States v. Spearin | |
---|---|
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Brandeis, joined by unanimous |
McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918), also referred to as the Spearin doctrine, is a 1918
The Supreme Court wrote: "Where one agrees to do, for a fixed sum, a thing possible to be performed, he will not be excused or become entitled to additional compensation, because unforeseen difficulties are encountered. Thus one who undertakes to erect a structure upon a particular site, assumes ordinarily the risk of subsidence of the soil. But if the contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications. This responsibility of the owner is not overcome by the usual clauses requiring builders to visit the site, to check the plans, and to inform themselves of the requirements of the work...the contractor should be relieved, if he was misled by erroneous statements in the specifications."[3]
Implied warranty
Related to the Spearin doctrine is the "implied warranty of adequacy", that the government is responsible to provide accurate plans and specifications to its contractors rather than the presumption of
See also
Notes
- ^ Parnass, John (February 2, 2006). "How Far Does Spearin Go?". Retrieved January 20, 2010.
- ^ Mitchell, Brendan P. (1999). "The Applicability of the Spearin Doctrine: Do Owners Warrant Plans and Specifications?". Findlaw. Retrieved January 20, 2010.
- ^ Spearin v. U.S. (248 U.S. 132 (1918)), 135-136. Court cases excluded.
- ISBN 0-7355-2364-9.
External links
- Text of United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132 (1918) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress