Jump to content

If in Disagreement with Changed Terms, Can the Government Accept those Terms Under Protest?


rios0311

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rios0311 said:

I have the 5th edition. Reading it now!

So having followed this thread something just keeps coming up in my head.   Good faith and fair dealing. 

I know the example in this thread is not exactly on target to the ideal but I wonder.  What ever happened with going to the other party hat in hand and having a serious conversation about the issue and work out an agreement (dare I say supplemental agreement noting that the FAR does not apply) that covers everyone's interests.  I am not talking about giving up rights, which I would put plainly on the table, I am talking about a honest conversation that nobody wants to destroy the rights of the other under the contract but yet preserve them while still settling the matter at hand.  Formal mediation of the matter even. 

After all the FAR and disputes act does not cover the transaction or so we are told so handle it like you would an every day matter.     If it doesn't work then you are into the matters of default, claim, dispute, litigation, etc.   it seems that hands are wringing over what might be rather than a specific position that has been taken.

Honest good faith and fair dealing has worked as well in saving a lot of money in contract matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rios0311 said:

I have the 5th edition. Reading it now!

Great! 
 

6 hours ago, C Culham said:

So having followed this thread something just keeps coming up in my head.   Good faith and fair dealing. 

I know the example in this thread is not exactly on target to the ideal but I wonder.  What ever happened with going to the other party hat in hand and having a serious conversation about the issue and work out an agreement (dare I say supplemental agreement noting that the FAR does not apply) that covers everyone's interests.  I am not talking about giving up rights, which I would put plainly on the table, I am talking about a honest conversation that nobody wants to destroy the rights of the other under the contract but yet preserve them while still settling the matter at hand.  Formal mediation of the matter even. 

After all the FAR and disputes act does not cover the transaction or so we are told so handle it like you would an every day matter.     If it doesn't work then you are into the matters of default, claim, dispute, litigation, etc.   it seems that hands are wringing over what might be rather than a specific position that has been taken.

Honest good faith and fair dealing has worked as well in saving a lot of money in contract matters.

This situation absolutely requires discussion and negotiation with the preferred goal of reaching mutual agreement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 2:38 AM, rios0311 said:

We have a contract with a company that provides us a building to house and maintain some of our property. The company does not own the building. The landlord informed the company that it sold the building and needs us out earlier than the contract end date.

In some circumstances, when a lessor sells the leased facility, the buyer takes title to the facility subject to the existing lease.  Thus, it is possible that the new owner cannot kick your contractor out of the leased facility without being in breach of the lease.  Have you explored this possibility?

On 9/24/2022 at 2:38 AM, rios0311 said:

Can we accept their terms under protest to preserve our rights to pursue legal remedies later if we experience more costs than what their “make-us-whole” proposal offers?

I think what you are asking is how can you accept terms proposed by your contractor without creating an accord and satisfaction.  It might be beneficial for you to review cases that address that subject and discuss your problem with your lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

I think what you are asking is how can you accept terms proposed by your contractor without creating an accord and satisfaction.  It might be beneficial for you to review cases that address that subject and discuss your problem with your lawyer.

Reservations of rights have been done many times by either the contractor or the government.

One shouldn’t have to resort to researching caselaw to learn how to do it. For that matter, if the contractor proposes moving to another location and storage there, you can simply agree with the understanding that the contractor is responsible for any additional cost or other impacts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...