Find Out What Meeting of the Minds Means





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.


The Act for the Prevention of
Frauds and Perjuries was an English law established in 1677 in order to prevent
perjuries in regards to legal contracts and agreements. It is from the Act for
the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries that the Statute of Frauds was taken.
The Statute of Frauds is a
legal policy that requires certain contracts to be created in written form.
Unlike many agreements, these specified contracts are not legally binding
unless a written contract is created to regulate and govern these agreements.
Many agreements are covered
under the Statute of Frauds, including contracts related to marriages and real
estate transactions. This policy, which was initially detailed in the Act for
the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries, continues to be used in many locations
today. In the United States, certain agreements cannot be considered legally
binding unless they are accompanied by a written 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
