| | MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY v. U.S. |
 | | Because this court agrees that MBTA is entitled to recover only the amount it would have cost to replace the Headhouse floors with new wooden floors meeting minimum building code requirements, not the cost of the concrete floors actually installed, this court affirms the judgment with respect to that conclusion. |
 | | Second, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that MBTA was entitled to recover, under section 2.2.1h of Exhibit 1 of the Design Agreement, the amount it would have cost to replace the Headhouse wooden floors with new wooden floors meeting the minimum building code requirements, but not the cost of concrete floors. |
 | | On the other hand, MBTA did not definitively know that the terrazzo floor cracking was the result of design error until June 1990, when Stone and Webster presented its report attributing 84% of the cracking to design error and 16% to a combination of contractor and designer error. |
| www.ll.georgetown.edu /federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5071.html (6403 words) |