Offers Explained




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.




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.


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
