B-132335, OCT. 20, 1961
Highlights
TO MIMASU SANGYO GOMEI KAISHA: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 21. THERE IS NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 21 WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY. WE STATED THAT A REEVALUATION OF THE FACTS BEFORE US INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR LOSS IN PROFIT OR DROP IN THE MARKET PRICE OF MATERIAL SOLD TO YOU BUT THAT OF THE TOTAL 4. YOU WERE ADVISED THAT IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT 116.
B-132335, OCT. 20, 1961
TO MIMASU SANGYO GOMEI KAISHA:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1961, AGAIN REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISIONS AFFIRMING THE PRIOR ACTION TAKEN ON YOUR CLAIM UNDER CONTRACT NO. DA/S/92-557-FEC-11873 DATED AUGUST 31, 1956.
THERE IS NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 21 WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY. IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 17, 1960, WE STATED THAT A REEVALUATION OF THE FACTS BEFORE US INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR LOSS IN PROFIT OR DROP IN THE MARKET PRICE OF MATERIAL SOLD TO YOU BUT THAT OF THE TOTAL 4,331,000 YEN CLAIMED THE ITEM OF 116,000 YEN, REPRESENTING LOSS DUE TO TRANSPORTATION, OXYGEN, AND LABOR COSTS INCURRED IN PREPARING AND SHIPPING THE 110 TONS OF SCRAP TAKEN FROM OTHER LOCATIONS THAN THE PILE CONTAINING THE MATERIAL PURCHASED BY YOU, MIGHT MERIT FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION. YOU WERE ADVISED THAT IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT 116,000 YEN ($322.22) IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF YOUR CLAIM AND IF YOU WOULD SO ADVISE US, FURTHER CONSIDERATION WOULD BE GIVEN TO THAT PART OF YOUR CLAIM. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1960, YOU REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT OFFER, AND IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1961, YOU REITERATE YOUR REFUSAL OF SUCH OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY DEPARTURE FROM THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR NUMEROUS PRIOR DECISIONS IN THE MATTER.