Contract In Depth



Free contract templates may be
used to create a standard form contract, which are also known as a boilerplate
contract or an adhesion contract. Whether paid or free, contract templates can
save an individual or enterprise substantial amounts of time, cost, and effort
that would otherwise be associated with the creation of a contract.
Contract software can be
drafted using free contract templates to help facilitate the use of contracts
and services. Contract software which an individual or enterprise obtains can
make use of free contract templates in order to allow the party that is
drafting the contract and then offering the contract to the other party, a
resource which can help them to make the contract more likely to stand up to
scrutiny in a court of law, as well as making sure that the free contract
templates which they use will provide for their particular needs.


A breach of trust can occur in any number of circumstances, and in
each case there may be a differing form of legal recourse. When the breach of
trust is included with a breach of contract, there may be both legal and civil
penalties.
For example, if there is a breach of contract between a day care
center and a parent, it may also include a breach of trust. If the day care
center took responsibility to care for a child and then failed to do so, they
may be charged with both breach of contract and breach of trust.
The result of those activities may influence whether or not the
charges are criminal or civil. If, for example, the child was injured because
of a failure to care for that child as promised, the charges would likely be
civil and criminal.

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.

Privity of contract is most
commonly an issue which arises during business contracts that have been formed
to allow for the sale of goods or services. Horizontal privity of contract
becomes an issue when the benefits bestowed by a contract are given to a third
party or a party that was not a part of the original contract. Vertical privity
of contract involves an independent contract that develops between one signer
of the original contract and another individual or other legal entity.
There are certain circumstances
under which privity of contract may be set aside which will allow the legal
entity who is not directly a part of the business contract to be allowed to sue
to force a party to the original contract to uphold their obligations. Privity
of contract will only allow a third party to the contract to go against one of
the original parties to the contract beyond the ability to collect the third
party’s entitlement to a benefit under the contract.


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

