U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1958

United States v. Sabin Metal Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided April 14, 1958 · Clark, Hand, Dimock

253 F.2d 956; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3966 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Irving Lederman, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant-appellant., Benjamin T. Richards, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of New York, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Systron-Donner Corporation (9th Cir. 1973)
Silver State Land LLC v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2020)
Pennco Trucking Inc. v. United States (Court of Claims 1990)
Sabine Corp. v. ONG Western, Inc. (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 1989)
Zanker Development Co. v. Cogito Systems Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)
Fadeley v. United States (Court of Claims 1988)
Aydin Corp. v. United States (Court of Claims 1982)
Cayuga Construction Corp. v. Vanco Engineering Co. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1976)
James v. Centex Construction Co. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1966)
Wender Presses, Inc. v. The United States (Court of Claims 1965)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment for the government’s damages arising out of defendant’s repudiation of a bid made by defendant for steel and silver scrap. Defendant claims that its bid was based on a mistake as to the proportion of silver in the scrap and that the government ought to have recognized that such a high bid could only have been the result of a mistake.

We adopt Judge Levet’s findings of fact, discussion and conclusions of law in their entirety. 151 F.Supp. 683.

Among the points raised by appellant which were not discussed by Judge Levet the principal one is the alleged error in the court’s ruling that testimony of an expert in the metal market that he would have known that the bid was so high as to be a mistake was not probative as to what the government ought to have known. This ruling is attacked as laying down one rule for the government and another for private citizens. It had no such effect. The distinction drawn was not between the government and private persons; it was between laymen and experts. What an expert in the scrap metal trade knows about the value of scrap is no measure of the knowledge with which the law ought to charge one whose sales of scrap are made only when new goods in its inventory become obsolete.

Judge Levet sustained objections to defendant’s questions addressed to government witnesses asking for the arithmetical point at which they would consider a hypothetical bid to be the result of mistake. In so doing the court was within the bounds of the trial judge’s discretion in limiting cross-examination. Defendant was given ample opportunity to elicit facts, as distinguished from opinions, that would indicate that the government must have known that the bid was so high as to be a mistake.

No other point raised by appellant and not covered by Judge Levet’s findings of fact, discussion and conclusions of law merits discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.