Weeks v. Baxter & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the court had jurisdiction over plaintiffs claim because “[p]laintiff merely ‘augments the legal theories underlying its claim. But it does not change the essence of that claim _’” (quoting Cerberonics, 13 Cl.Ct. at 419)
• finding that the court had jurisdiction over augmented legal theories of recovery, because it had not changed the essence of the claim, and the plaintiff had requested the same relief, therefore, the defendant was not prejudiced
• where recovery before the Contracting Officer was based on VEQ clause, new arguments for relief would not be heard
• As noted above: “Where the cost of performance greatly differs from the stated unit price due to changes ordered by the government, the Changes clause may override the VEQ clause.”
• “The instant case is not one where plaintiff has raised an entirely new claim_ Plaintiff merely ‘augments the legal theories underlying its claim. But it does not change the essence of that claim....’”
• after a case is properly in this court, a contractor may change the amount of its claim, but may not raise new claims or theories of recovery not presented to the Contracting Officer for a final decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).