Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Harvey Steel Company

• 1904 • 196 U.S. 310 • Fuller Court
The United States v. Harvey Steel Company case in 1904 revolved around a dispute over the payment for nickel steel armor plates that were delivered to the U.S. Navy by Harvey Steel Company. The company had agreed on a contract with the government, which included an escalation clause stating that if costs of production increased due to unforeseen circumstances, additional compensation would be provided. However, when such circumstances arose and production costs rose significantly due to an...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1904
Docket: 275
196 U.S. 310
25 S. Ct. 240
49 L. Ed. 492
1905 U.S. LEXIS 902
Argued: Jan 03, 1905

United States v. Harvey Steel Company

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The United States v. Harvey Steel Company case in 1904 revolved around a dispute over the payment for nickel steel armor plates that were delivered to the U.S. Navy by Harvey Steel Company. The company had agreed on a contract with the government, which included an escalation clause stating that if costs of production increased due to unforeseen circumstances, additional compensation would be provided. However, when such circumstances arose and production costs rose significantly due to an unexpected increase in nickel prices, the government refused extra payment arguing that price fluctuations were not "unforeseen" as they are common in business operations. Harvey Steel Company sued for breach of contract and won at both district court level and circuit court level before reaching Supreme Court where it was ruled against them by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who stated that changes in market prices did not qualify as unforeseeable events under their agreement's escalation clause because these are normal risks associated with doing business.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Harvey Steel Company, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. He argued that there was a clear breach of contract by Harvey Steel Company and that it should be held accountable for its actions. According to him, when a company agrees to provide goods or services in exchange for payment from another party (in this case, the U.S government), they are legally obligated to fulfill their end of the agreement unless circumstances beyond their control prevent them from doing so. In his view, Harvey Steel failed to meet its contractual obligations without just cause and therefore should have been found liable for damages resulting from this failure. Furthermore, he contended that dismissing such cases on technicalities undermines public confidence in legal institutions as it allows companies like Harvey Steel Co., who fail in their commitments without valid reasons, escape liability while causing harm or loss to others.

Opinion written by Justice OWHolmes
Decided: Jan 16, 1905
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms