Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. The United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the burden is on the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a termination for default is justified
• stating that “the government did not, as it urges, satisfy its burden by merely showing that the contractor was behind schedule”
• finding that plaintiffs are tasked with “proving the amount of loss with sufficient certainty so that the determination of the amount of damages will be more than mere speculation.”
• finding that plaintiffs are tasked with “proving the amount of loss with sufficient certainty so that the determination of the amount of damages will be more than mere speculation.”
• faulting the government for failing to provide “direct evidence on the time which it estimated it would take [the contractor] to complete the contract.”
• rejecting contractor’s argument that United States could not recover for corrective work after it terminated contract for convenience

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).