Important Facts to Know When Refusing To Sign A Contract







Without recourse is a legal
phrase used by an endorser of a negotiable instrument to signify that if the
payment of the instrument is denied or refused, the endorser will not be held
responsible. An
endorser is an individual who signs a document that didn’t originally make it.
The negotiable instruments involved with this
definition typically refer to business or personal checks or promissory notes.
An individual who endorses such an instrument will attach the phrase
“without recourse” to specifically decline the responsibility of
payment. Through the incorporation of this phrase, the endorser declines
responsibility by virtue of the endorsement and becomes merely the assignor of
the title to the negotiable instrument.
The without recourse clause is governed by the
broader laws associated with the distribution of Commercial paper, which is
codified through the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States Federal
Government. As a result, a without recourse attachment will be honored by all
courts assuming basic requirements are met.

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.


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
