B-119947: Jan 31, 1956

ATTORNEY AT LAW: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 29. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT INSOFAR AS OUR OFFICE IS CONCERNED THE CHECK MAY BE NEGOTIATED BY THE PAYEE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ITS CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS CONSIDERED TO BE DUE UNDER THE CITED CONTRACT...

B-119947: Oct 18, 1954

ATTORNEY AT LAW: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED APRIL 16. WHEREIN THERE WAS DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $7. THE BID WAS ACCEPTED ON OCTOBER 2. YOU ALLEGEDLY DISCOVERED THAT A LARGE QUANTITY OF THE BOOTS WERE NOT IN AN "UNUSED CONDITION" BUT RATHER WERE SLIGHTLY USED OR USED AND IN A POOR CONDITION. YOU HAVE REQUESTED A RESCISSION OF THE CONTRACT. YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE SETTLE...

B-119947: Nov 01, 1955

TO PAUL VARKELL COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTERS OF AUGUST 16 AND SEPTEMBER 19. IN THE LETTERS IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ALLEGED RECEIPT OF 1. IT IS STATED IN SUBSTANCE THAT YOU ARE OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO RELIEF BECAUSE THE PROPERTY SOLD AND SHIPPED WAS OTHER THAN THAT OFFERED FOR SALE. AS WAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE PREVIOUS ACTIONS OF OUR OFFICE. WHEREIN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO THE AW...

B-119947: Apr 01, 1958

TO PAUL VARKELL COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO A LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 10. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE "ARE APPLICABLE IN EVERY DETAIL" TO THOSE CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 4. WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE CONTRACT THERE INVOLVED COULD BE CANCELED. THAT CONCLUSION WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT. WHILE THE PROPERTY WAS OFFERED FOR SALE ON AN "AS IS. " "WHERE IS" BASIS. SO THA...