The benefits conferred by gratuities may be redistributed or withdrawn at any time in the discretion of Congress.

—pay a construction contractor additional compensation for performance of a contract which he is under obligation to perform is invalid because without consideration, but the exception is equally well recognized that where, during the prosecution of the work, some unforeseen and substantial difficulties in its performance occur which were not known or anticipated by the …

—the Supreme Court permitted an architect to recover compensation in addition to that contracted for and legally recoverable, growing out of delays as the result of the San Francisco earthquake and fire, on the ground that "there was the moral consideration which properly induced the recognition of an honorable obligation and turned an unenforceable equity into a …

It extends to the creation of such obligations in recognition of claims which are merely moral or honorary.

See, for example, the delegations of authority in the War Department under Executive Order No. 9ooi, set forth in: PR 107 (b)(2), IO7 (e)(I)(2), 107 (f), 107 (g), 107 (h), 107 (i). i5I.

—held that an architect was entitled to recover his five per cent fee on an additional amount allowed by Congress to the contractor because of an earthquake, saying: "There was the moral consideration which properly in-1949] PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 273

—ruling government promise to pay more to contractor supported by binding "moral consideration" due to changes caused by San Franciso earthquake

A promise to pay additional compensation under an existingcontract to build a custom house, was held enforceable due to the occurrence of the San Francisco earthquake.

—moral consideration was recognized as the basis for variation of the contract by the United States in view of the unexpected difficulties of the contractor.

Referring to previous pension decisions, Chief Justice Taft said: "Congress in shaping the form of its bounty may impose conditions and limitations on its acquisition and enjoyment by the beneficiaries which it could not impose on the use and enjoyment by them of a vested right."

[CITATION] Haskins Bros. & Co. v. O’Malley

[PDF] James W. Syfers

[BOOK] Contract law in the construction industry context