Post Content

Written by James Crowley, Esq., Bureau of Municipal Finance Law

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled against a company which supplied road salt to the City of Boston in the winter of 2004-2005 and then disputed with the City over the amount owed for the deliveries. The decision is International Salt Company, LLC v. City of Boston, (1st Circuit. Mass., December 18, 2009).

 

In August 2004 the City of Boston sought bids for 75,000 tons of road salt for the upcoming winter season. The City accepted the bid of International Salt Company, LLC (ISCO) and a contract was executed. Under the terms of the contract, ISCO agreed to supply 75,000 tons of road salt at $36.42 per ton for a total price of $2.7 million. In October 2004 the City Auditor certified the appropriation of funds. A week later the Mayor approved the contract in writing.

 

ISCO delivered about 71,000 tons of road salt to the City by February 2005 at the agreed price of $36.42 per ton. It was a very snowy winter, however, and the City officials demanded additional deliveries through the end of the contract term on June 30, 2005 so as to ensure public safety. ISCO contended that it was obligated to supply only 75,000 tons at $36.42 per ton. The company informed the City that shipping costs had risen sharply and any deliveries in excess of 75,000 tons would have to be paid for at a price to be negotiated or later determined by a court. Under protest, ISCO delivered an additional 27,000 tons in excess of the 75,000 ton contract figure. Although ISCO wanted a price increase for the 27,000 additional tons of road salt, the City paid the vendor at the $36.42 contract rate. ISCO attempted to negotiate with the City and argued that the City by placing orders in excess of the contractually established 75,000 ton figure had implicitly agreed to pay the fair market price for the extra deliveries. ISCO’s position was that the City should be expected to pay the market rate of $56.37 per ton instead of the contract price of $36.42 per ton. Consequently, ISCO asserted that the City of Boston should pay $1.5 million for the additional 27,000 tons instead of the $984,000 amount as calculated by the City.

 

Click here to read more …

Written By:

Recent Posts

DOR + Social Media — #CheckUsOut posted on Jul 28

DOR + Social Media — #CheckUsOut

  State tax administration might not deliver such seismic news events as LeBron’s eagerly-awaited announcement of his return to his old Cleveland team, but knowing what’s going on at any given moment in the tax world could save you some time and effort, and maybe   …Continue Reading DOR + Social Media — #CheckUsOut

Commute to work on the T, Commuter Rail or Turnpike? You may be eligible for a Massachusetts Commuter Deduction on your tax return! posted on Jul 16

Commute to work on the T, Commuter Rail or Turnpike?  You may be eligible for a Massachusetts Commuter Deduction on your tax return!

The Commuter Deduction was enacted by the Legislature to cover specific commuter expenses. To help understand the deduction,  the Department of Revenue’s DOR University has released an e-learning module explaining what qualifies for a deduction, real-life examples and how you can claim your commuter deduction   …Continue Reading Commute to work on the T, Commuter Rail or Turnpike? You may be eligible for a Massachusetts Commuter Deduction on your tax return!

DOR Offers FREE E-Learning Course on Fraternal Organization Tax Responsibilities posted on Jul 9

Help get the word out! The Department of Revenue’s online DOR University has recently developed a new free e-learning course on the tax responsibilities of fraternal organizations. Fraternal organizations are considered a type of Chapter 180 Corporation, which are formed for charitable or other purposes.   …Continue Reading DOR Offers FREE E-Learning Course on Fraternal Organization Tax Responsibilities