United States v. Buffalo Coal Mining Company, Inc., Buffalo Coal Mining Company, Inc., Cross-Appellants. v. United States of America, Cross-Appellee

Petitioner Nesbett raises several points :in urging the court to grant a rehearing. Some reflect a misunderstanding of the rationale or a fundamental disagreement with the opinion, which no amount of explanation will remedy. Points One and 'Three fall in that category. We confer no “preferred status” on the government in contractual relationships, but state the ■obvious when we point out that RFC’s refusal to make full disbursement was “fully in accord with federal policy which requires the protection of the security of federal investments * * And when such action is legally justified, as we found it to be, the government or any private party may take similar action. Nor did we rewrite the agreement, as petitioner apparently believes. Rather, we accepted petitioner’s understanding of the agreement but concluded on the facts in the record that RFC was legally excused from further performance. And RFC’s past performance was legally sufficient to invoke liability on the guarantees to the extent of the loss. Petitioner’s remaining point is of greater ingenuity. Citing Restatement, Contracts, § 228 (1932), he maintains that the purpose of the loan was to rehabilitate the mine, that…