Talk:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
More information on the doctrine edit
| Tribal contracting: understanding and drafting business contracts with American Indian tribes |
|---|
|
Author M. Brent Leonhard Publisher American Bar Association. 2009 ISBN 160442608X. 9781604426083 Length 161 pages page 101
The Christian Doctrine A central component of federal contract law is the Christian doctrine. In 1963 the Court of Claim's held in G.L. Christian and Associates v. United States that, despite the absence of an express termination for convenience clause in a federal contract, such a clause is both "a deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy" and mandated by regulatory law, and as such would be incorporated into the contract as a matter of law. Basically, the court held that the contracting officer had no authority to issue a contract without this provision because regulation mandated its inclusion, and it was a clause that is "deeply ingrained" in public procurement policy. Application of the doctrine doesn't turn on intentional or inadvertent omission, but on whether procurement policies arc being avoided or evaded, deliberately or negligently, by lesser officials. This general rule, that a contract clause will be read into a government contract when its inclusion is both mandated by regulatory law and is deeply ingrained in public procurement policy, has been used to incorporate a number of contract clauses by operation of law. These include the disputes clause, payment clause, Buy America Act clause, and the Truth in Negotiations Act clause. While the Christian doctrine is a product of the Claims Court, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seems to have accepted it. Consequently, it probably applies even to those few contracts that fall outside the coverage of the Contracts Disputes Act of 1978. |
Ikip 00:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Opening of the article cites the case as a Federal Acquisition Regulations case, when the FAR was not in existence. The case was an ASPR case as ssif further on in the article.
Errare malum est. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephantomproofreader (talk • contribs) 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)