Verbal Contract V. Written Contract
All You Need to Know About Restatement of Contracts
Find Out All You Need to Know About Construction Worker
Government Files Lawsuit against Fluor Companies
On November 8, 2012, the Department of Justice announced that the United States government is intervening in a case against Fluor Corporation and its subsidiary, Fluor Hanford Inc, after the Texas-based companies used federal funds for lobbying activity. The lawsuit for violations of the False Claims Act was first filed by a whistleblower, Loydene Rambo.
According to the Justice Department, Fluor had a contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) for multiple services at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington State between 1999 and 2008. The facility is federally funded.
According to the original complaint, part of the DOE contract stated that Fluor could not use the federal funds for lobbying. The whistle blower’s complaint alleged that Fluor used the funds for lobbying from 2005 to 2008 anyway. The company hired two lobbying firms, Secure Horizons LLC and Congressional Strategies LLC, to lobby members of Congress and federal agencies.
The United States has agreed to intervene in the case against Fluor, but the government will not intervene in cases against Secure Horizons LLC and Congressional Strategies LLC. Since Ms. Rambo filed the lawsuit under the False Claims Act, she can share a percentage of the recovery with the United States government.
Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, stated: “The taxpayer money Congress allocated for this program was for training federal emergency response personnel and first responders, not to lobby Congress and other for more funding. When public funds are misused, as alleged in this case, the Justice Department will work to restore them to the Treasury.”
The Civil Division of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington are handling the case and receiving assistance from the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Offers Explained
Read This Before Entering Into A Quasi Contract
Simple Guide to Verbal Contracts
In the
United States, verbal contracts will usually refer to unwritten or oral
contracts. An unwritten contract will usually mean that the contract or
agreement was made through the use of spoken words as opposed to formally
writing and entering into record the provisions of said contract.
The United
States has laws that will recognize verbal contracts in a court of law and
enforce the agreed upon provisions in the case of a dispute. However, because
verbal contracts are oftentimes unwritten contracts, there will be inherent
problems involved in a legal dispute surrounding verbal contracts.
The most
common issue which arises is that verbal contracts are extremely hard to prove
to have ever actually occurred in the first place. Evidence such as witnesses
and an overall preponderance of evidence will be necessary to prove that a
party violated verbal contracts. Therefore, it can be deemed that unwritten
contracts, as opposed to formally written contracts, are not weighed as heavily
or given the same legal merit in a court of law due to the lack of actual
physical evidence of the contract.
Understand Your Rights As An Employee
The Secret of Offer and Acceptance
The underlying philosophical approach to contract law is pacta
sunt servanda. Pacta sunt servanda is a Latin phrase that
can be literally translated as “Pacts must be kept,” but is more commonly and
colloquially translated to mean “agreements are to be kept.” This phrase is the
essential theory behind contract law. However, pacta sunt servanda only
applies if the contract that is formed is a legally valid one.
One of the most essential
aspects used to determine if a contract is valid or not is if there is a
legally recognized offer and acceptance. The focus on offer and acceptance is
the traditional approach to analyzing whether an agreement is present between
the two parties who are in a contract dispute.
When measuring whether there is
a sufficient agreement between the two parties, there must be an offer and
acceptance. The offer is the terms that are presented to the “offeree” by the
“offeror”. In order for a contract to be formed, the offer must be accepted
unconditionally.
If the initial “offeree” makes any changes to the terms
presented to them by the offeror, then there cannot be offer and acceptance at
that point, for the individuals have immediately swapped position. This new
offer, and acceptance of the new terms, may result in agreement, however. The
difference is largely technical, and only becomes an issue if there is a contractual
dispute between the parties.