B-155759, JAN. 27, 1965
Highlights
LTD.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE WAS ANY AGREEMENT THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD BE PAID FOR THE SERVICES INVOLVED. RATHER IT APPEARS THAT THE TWO WINDOWS WERE TINTED AS A SAMPLE OF THE WORK WHICH WOULD BE FURNISHED IN THE EVENT A CONTRACT WAS AWARDED YOUR COMPANY FOR TINTING A LARGER NUMBER OF WINDOWS. IT APPEARS THAT THE INTENTION TO CHARGE FOR TINTING THE TWO WINDOWS AROSE ONLY AFTER YOUR COMPANY WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING A CONTRACT FOR THE ENTIRE JOB. WE REFER TO THE STATEMENT IN YOUR NOVEMBER 30 LETTER THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE CHARGED ANYTHING FOR THE WORK ON THE TWO WINDOWS IF NO CONTRACT HAD BEEN AWARDED AT ALL OR IF AN ORDER FOR ALL THE WORK YOUR COMPANY QUOTED UPON HAD BEEN AWARDED TO IT.
B-155759, JAN. 27, 1965
TO MR. H. EASTWOOD, MANAGER, BUCKLE BROS, PTY. LTD.:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1964,RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR TINTING TWO WINDOWS AT AVALON AIRFIELD, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, VICTORIA.
UPON REEXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE WAS ANY AGREEMENT THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD BE PAID FOR THE SERVICES INVOLVED, BUT RATHER IT APPEARS THAT THE TWO WINDOWS WERE TINTED AS A SAMPLE OF THE WORK WHICH WOULD BE FURNISHED IN THE EVENT A CONTRACT WAS AWARDED YOUR COMPANY FOR TINTING A LARGER NUMBER OF WINDOWS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT APPEARS THAT THE INTENTION TO CHARGE FOR TINTING THE TWO WINDOWS AROSE ONLY AFTER YOUR COMPANY WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING A CONTRACT FOR THE ENTIRE JOB. IN THAT CONNECTION, WE REFER TO THE STATEMENT IN YOUR NOVEMBER 30 LETTER THAT YOUR COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE CHARGED ANYTHING FOR THE WORK ON THE TWO WINDOWS IF NO CONTRACT HAD BEEN AWARDED AT ALL OR IF AN ORDER FOR ALL THE WORK YOUR COMPANY QUOTED UPON HAD BEEN AWARDED TO IT.
ORDINARILY, ONE WHO ACCEPTS A SAMPLE DOES NOT BECOME LIABLE TO PAY FOR IT. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE IMMEDIATE SAMPLES WERE ACCEPTED WITH ANY DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING.
OUR OFFICE CANNOT AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF A CLAIM UNLESS THERE IS A LEGAL BASIS TO SUPPORT IT. THEREFORE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUSTAIN THE PRIOR DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.