Nec Am., Inc. v. The United States, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed. Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Nec Am., Inc. v. The United States, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State Corps v. United States (uscfc, 2019-02-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" State Corps v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Emiabata v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445 (Fed' Cir.) ("If the default was improper, the government is liable for the contractor's termination for convenience costs.") (citation omitted), modified on other grounds, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed. cir. 1988).
cited Cited "see" Baistar Mechanical, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445 (Fed.Cir.), modified, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see" Dobyns v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445-46, modified, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir.1988) (government breached covenant via its “lack of diligence and interference with or failure to cooperate”); see also N. Star Alaska Hous.
discussed Cited "see" M.E.S., Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1443 (Fed.Cir.1988) (“Caselaw supports the proposition that a government decision to terminate a contractor for default is a government claim.”), modified in other party by 857 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also Placeway Constr.
cited Cited "see" Southern Comfort Builders, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445 (Fed.Cir.1988), opinion modified on other grounds, 857 F.2d 787 (1988); SMS Data Prods.
discussed Cited "see" Essex Electro Engineers, Inc.,appellant v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary of the Navy
Fed. Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
Every contract, as an aspect of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, imposes an implied obligation “that neither party will do anything that will hinder or delay the other party in performance of the contract.” Luria Bros. v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 676 , 369 F.2d 701 , 708 (1966); see Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445 , modified 857 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir.1988); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 cmt. d (1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Information Systems & Networks, Corp. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Such covenants require each party “not to interfere with the other party’s performance and not to act so as to destroy the reasonable expectations of the other party regarding the fruits of the contract.” Centex Corp., 395 F.3d at 1304 ; see also Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445 (Fed.Cir. 1988), modified on other grounds by, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." North Star Alaska Housing Corp. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
Such covenants require each party “not to interfere with the other party’s performance and not to act so as to destroy the reasonable expectations of the other party regarding the fruits of the contract.” Centex Corp., 395 F.3d at 1304 ; see also Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445 (Fed.Cir.1988), modified on other grounds by, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
In attempting to excuse itself from liability, plaintiff invokes the principle of prior material breach: “Upon a material breach of a contract the non-breaching party has the right to discontinue performance of the contract.” Stone Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 973 F.2d 1548, 1550 (Fed.Cir.1992); see also Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1446 (Fed.Cir.1988) (holding a material breach may allow the non-breaching party to avoid the contract, discharge its duties under the contract, and reheve it of a default determination and its consequences), modified, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir.…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." C.B.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445-46 , modified, 857 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir.1988) (duty to inform contractor of compliance, where breach caused interference with performance); Womack v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 399, 413 (1968) (duty to provide accurate estimates, upon which contractor’s performance is based).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nec America, Inc.
v.
The United States
88-1258.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sep 28, 1988.
857 F.2d 787
Published

857 F.2d 787

10 ITRD 1687, 6 Fed. Cir. (T) 179

NEC AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal No. 88-1258.

United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.

Sept. 28, 1988.

Appealed from: U.S. Court of International Trade.

Edward N. Glad, Glad & Ferguson, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant.

Saul Davis, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, New York City, argued, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were John R. Bolton, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Washington, D.C., and Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, Intern. Trade Field Office, New York City.

Before ARCHER and MAYER, Circuit Judges, and BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge.

ARCHER, Circuit Judge.

[*~787]1

This appeal is from the judgment of the United States Court of International Trade classifying certain "paging receivers" under item 685.24 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States. 681 F.Supp. 862.

2

The same merchandise presented in this case was the subject of classification in NEC America, Inc. v. United States, 8 CIT 184, 596 F.Supp. 466 (1984),aff'd, 760 F.2d 1295 (Fed.Cir.1985) (NEC I ). Chief Judge Re again reached the same conclusion we previously affirmed in NEC I.

3

We have considered the arguments of the appellant but, for the reasons expressed in the opinion below, we conclude that the holding of NEC I was not erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in this case.

[*~788]4

AFFIRMED.