B-126848, NOV. 19, 1956
Highlights
CRYER: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 15. THEN HAVE HIM WAIT 4 1/2 YEARS FOR PAYMENT AND NOT GIVE THE SELLER SOME RECOMPENSE FOR THE UNCALLED-FOR DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENT. THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT ONE OF POLICY BUT OF LAW. THIS FACT ALONE DOES NOT EMPOWER THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO MAKE SUCH AN AWARD ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY THINK IS A SOUND POLICY. THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM LIABILITY FOR INTEREST ON UNPAID CLAIMS IS NOT TO BE WAIVED BY SUCH POLICY ARGUMENTS. THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AS SUCH WAS NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR EITHER BY YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OR BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS. WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ALLOW ANY DISBURSEMENT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS NOT PROVIDED FOR BY LAW.
B-126848, NOV. 19, 1956
TO MR. CHARLES G. CRYER:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 15, 1956, IN EFFECT REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 8, 1956, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $781.44 (INVOICE NO. 1897-A, SEPTEMBER 10, 1956) REPRESENTING ACCRUED INTEREST ON $2,838 PAID TO YOU FOR LUMBER FURNISHED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNDER CONTRACT NO. DA-09-026 ENG-29842, DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1951.
YOU STATE THAT YOU CANNOT ACCEPT OUR SETTLEMENT AS FINAL SINCE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE THE POLICY OR INTENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS POLICY MAKERS TO TAKE A SELLER'S MERCHANDISE, USE IT, AND THEN HAVE HIM WAIT 4 1/2 YEARS FOR PAYMENT AND NOT GIVE THE SELLER SOME RECOMPENSE FOR THE UNCALLED-FOR DELAY IN MAKING PAYMENT.
THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT ONE OF POLICY BUT OF LAW. THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT DELAY OR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF MONEY GIVES RISE TO A RIGHT TO RECOVER INTEREST HAS BEEN HELD NOT TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, UNLESS THE SOVEREIGN'S CONSENT TO PAY INTEREST HAS BEEN EXHIBITED BY AN ACT OF THE CONGRESS, OR BY A LAWFUL CONTRACT OF ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. SEE UNITED STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION AND TRADING CO., 253 U.S. 330; UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211, 216; UNITED STATES EX REL. ANGARICA V. BAYARD, 127 U.S. 251; RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG AND POTOMAC RAILROAD V. UNITED STATES, 95 C.CLS. 244., HINDS V. UNITED STATES, 70 C.CLS. 288, 293. CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY AN ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, CH. 646, SECTION 1, 62 STAT. 978, 28 U.S.C. 2516 (A), THAT
"INTEREST ON A CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ONLY UNDER A CONTRACT OR ACT OF CONGRESS EXPRESSLY PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT THEREOF.'
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS HELD THAT ALTHOUGH AN AWARD OF INTEREST ON A CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE JUST OR EQUITABLE, THIS FACT ALONE DOES NOT EMPOWER THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO MAKE SUCH AN AWARD ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY THINK IS A SOUND POLICY. THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM LIABILITY FOR INTEREST ON UNPAID CLAIMS IS NOT TO BE WAIVED BY SUCH POLICY ARGUMENTS. SEE UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK RAYON IMPORTING CO., 329 U.S. 654. THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AS SUCH WAS NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR EITHER BY YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OR BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, AND WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ALLOW ANY DISBURSEMENT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS NOT PROVIDED FOR BY LAW.