Read This Before Entering Into A Quasi Contract



Employers are
legally allowed to withhold employee wages when state, local, or Federal law
requires them to do so. The Federal law of the United States actually requires
employers to withhold wages to satisfy payroll tax requirements administered
through the Internal Revenue Service.
The payroll
tax requirements are used to fund Federal income tax, Medicare tax, and Social
Security tax. If an employer did not withhold employee wages, there would be no
way to fund such programs or levies. In addition, if local law requires it, the
employer is also required to withhold wages for state taxation.
As a result of the tax responsibilities, all
employers withhold a certain percentage of an employee’s wages. That being
said, employers are not allowed to withhold wages for any circumstance that is
not aligned with taxation or funding company programs or benefits. Withholding
wages without reason is illegal under United States employment law.





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.

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

