Plaintiff when Defendant finally rushed Plaintiff on to the site. [Emphasis supplied.] This seems to be something more than a "ripple effect” theory and may well have been developed by plaintiffs present counsel in an effort to overcome any difficulties of proof incident to showing significant damage flowing from the 15-month delay period itself. Thus, in addition to claiming that it was damaged following the end of the delay period through a consequent Government-forced acceleration, Fruehauf claims to have been further damaged by the Government’s furnishing it a defective working site which seems at least somewhat analogous to a typical claim arising out of defective Government-furnished equipment. See, e.g., Ekco Products Co. v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 75, 312 F. 2d 768 (1963) (<HOLDING>). To like effect is S. S. Mullen, Inc. v.
holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate holding that where the government agrees to furnish equipment to the contractor there is an implied warranty that suchequipment will be suitable for its intended use holding that a contract was implied where the special employer allowed the claimant to come onto its premises use its equipment and participate in its show under its direction holding the implied warranty is implied in all residential leases in california holding that under virginia law an implied warranty claim was not actionable against the plaintiff because there was no privity