When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for any reason” ended a supplier’s contract. Is this too much governmental power or good stewardship of public resources?
Under a public contract, a Supplier agreed to provide fuel to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. About eleven months into the two-year contract, the Authority terminated the contract because it could get the same fuel for a cheaper price from a different supplier.
Upon 30-days written notice, termination by the Authority was within its “sole discretion . . . for any reason.” The terminated party was expressly entitled to payment for: demobilization, contract closeout, and costs of and profit on work performed.
The Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court held the termination was proper and made several points:
- Federal law on termination for convenience was not binding on the Commonwealth;
- General principles of contract interpretation under State law applied;
- The termination language was unambiguous and broad; and
- The requirement for pre-termination written notice was enough consideration for a contract.
The Court expressly stated it was not deciding whether a T4C would be proper to rebid the contract in search of a lower price. But, the roadmap of this decision would make it easy for a Court to find even such a T4C was OK.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
Government’s Negligent Estimate a Trick?
The Government’s negligent estimate failed to provide the “most current information available.”
