Harvey Ward Locke v. United States Case Brief

United States Court of Claims1960Docket #2402700
283 F.2d 521 151 Ct. Cl. 262 1960 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 154

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: The court held that a contractor whose requirements contract was improperly terminated by the government could recover damages for the lost opportunity to obtain business, even if the contract did not guarantee a minimum amount of work.

Legal Significance: This case establishes that damages for breach of a requirements contract can include the value of a lost chance for profit, provided a reasonable probability of damage and a basis for computation exist.

Harvey Ward Locke v. United States Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Plaintiff, Harvey Ward Locke, held a requirements contract with the General Services Administration (GSA) for typewriter repair services in San Diego, California, for one year. His name, along with three other contractors, was placed on a Federal Supply Schedule. Government agencies (excluding the Department of Defense) were generally required to use contractors from this schedule but could choose any listed contractor. Plaintiff was the low bidder among the four. After several months, the government improperly terminated plaintiff’s contract for default. Plaintiff appealed to the GSA Board of Review, which found the termination improper but denied his claim for lost profits. Plaintiff then sued in the Court of Claims. Separately, plaintiff’s bid for a similar contract in Fort Worth, Texas, was rejected due to a finding of non-responsibility, a decision upheld by the GSA Board of Review, which found ample evidence for non-responsibility independent of the California contract termination. Plaintiff alleged this rejection was a foreseeable consequence of the California breach.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Can a contractor recover damages for lost profits resulting from the government’s improper termination of a requirements contract when the contract did not guarantee any specific volume of work but only provided an opportunity to compete for available work?

Yes, as to the California contract, the plaintiff may recover damages for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod temp

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Can a contractor recover damages for lost profits resulting from the government’s improper termination of a requirements contract when the contract did not guarantee any specific volume of work but only provided an opportunity to compete for available work?

Conclusion

This case affirms that a party wrongfully deprived of an opportunity to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor

Legal Rule

Requirements contracts are enforceable, and a party deprived of a reasonable expectation Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupid

Legal Analysis

The court rejected the government's argument that the California requirements contract's lack Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exe

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A contractor wrongfully terminated from a non-exclusive requirements contract is entitled
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui offi

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial