November 7, 2002
Appeal of
LOYD V. LOVELL
Under Contract No. HCR 648AA
PSBCA Nos. 4766 and 4811
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Loyd V. Lovell
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Robert P. Faust, Esq.
OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant, Loyd V. Lovell, has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Board's decision in these appeals, Loyd V. Lovell, PSBCA Nos. 4766, 4811, 02-2 BCA ¶ 31,933. Respondent opposes the motion.
In his motion, Appellant takes issue with two factual findings[1] and several of the conclusions reached by the Board in deciding these appeals. In general, Appellant repeats arguments made in connection with the Board's consideration of the original appeals. Where a party merely repeats arguments that were previously made and considered, there is no basis for reconsideration. The General Store, PSBCA No. 3951, 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,124; Patricia J. Stevens, PSBCA No. 3272, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,951. Nevertheless, we have considered the substance of Appellant's motion.
Appellant's primary difficulties with the Board's Opinion appear to be related to the questions of whether Respondent's representative threatened Appellant's daughter's job, and whether Respondent's representative allowed Appellant to consider the proposed settlement overnight before asking him to sign it.
Appellant argues that, contrary to the Board's finding (Opinion, Finding 5), Respondent's representative never warned his daughter directly that she had an ethical obligation as a Postal Service employee not to involve herself in Appellant's contract. Appellant contends that Respondent's representative only stated this to Appellant, after his daughter had left. However, even if true, Appellant's current version of the facts is not inconsistent with his previous statement (referred to in the Opinion) that the remarks concerning his daughter's involvement were not made until after he had already signed the settlement agreement. Under those circumstances, any such warning would not constitute duress affecting the validity of the agreement.
Appellant also argues again that the record demonstrates that he was not allowed to consider the proposed settlement overnight before signing it. However, as we stated in the original Opinion, we need not decide whether Appellant was allowed to consider the proposal overnight, since we do not consider Appellant's version of the facts to constitute duress in any event.
We have considered Appellant's other arguments and his discussion of the Board's factual findings. However, we conclude that Appellant has not shown any factual or legal errors that would warrant changing our decision. See, e.g., Gary W. Noble, PSBCA No. 4094, 00-1 BCA ¶ 30,602; B.C. Topps d/b/a Topps Transport, PSBCA No. 2241, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,764. Accordingly, Appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied and the original Opinion is affirmed.[2]
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman
I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
I concur:
Norman D. Menegat
Administrative Judge
Board Member
[1] Appellant's motion discusses nearly all the factual findings in the Opinion. However, the motion primarily repeats information previously offered by Appellant, but not accepted or not considered relevant by the Board in deciding the appeals.
[2] In its Opinion the Board dismissed Appellant's claim for consequential/punitive damages without prejudice because of Appellant's failure to certify the claim as required by the Contract Disputes Act. The Board also noted that damages for emotional pain and suffering and punitive damages are ordinarily not recoverable in any event before boards of contract appeals. In a letter accompanying his motion for reconsideration, Appellant has asked "where I need to go to get the consequential/punitive damages dealt with." The Board does not provide legal advice to a party, and Appellant is advised to seek his own legal counsel if he intends to pursue that claim.