Implications of Christian from a Contractor’s Perspective
Because the Court of Claims ruled that there were certain clauses that are automatically assumed to be included in a contract (despite the clause being absent), the main risk that the Christian Doctrine poses is that contractors are unsure about the contract’s terms and conditions, presenting the risk that the doctrine will be inconsistently applied. Theoretically, however, the Christine Doctrine protects the contractor’s rights too. This paper will demonstrate how the Christian Doctrine creates frustrations in the procurement processes, results in an inconsistent application of the law, and protects the contractor.
Unclear Interpretation of Contract’s Terms and Conditions
Because the …show more content…
The principle of mutual agreement relies on the assumption that the terms and conditions are not only clearly worded, but physically present in the agreement. On the other hand, the Christian Doctrine allows “deeply ingrained” policies to be incorporated into the contract, regardless of whether these policies are expressly included in the contract. Contractors may understand they generally have to accept the terms and conditions that the government offers; however, contractors also have the expectation of being fully informed of terms and conditions before entering the contract (Shedd 1977, 21). Christian hinders the contractor’s ability to be fully informed about its …show more content…
It is well-known that the Christian Doctrine allows for the incorporation of the Changes Clause, the Termination for Convenience Clause, and the Termination for Default Clause. Nevertheless, Christian has also been cited in cases not pertaining to omitted mandatory clauses (Shedd 1977, 15). For instance, in the 1969 Schoenbroad v. the United States case, the importance of competition had been well-established. Judge Durfree concluded that The Armed Services Procurement Regulations, dating back to 1948, stressed the importance of competition when he ruled that the Government did have the right to terminate the contract since the competition principle was violated. However, by the time this ruling was made the Armed Services Procurement Regulations had been in use for almost twenty years; thus, it is not unreasonable to expect contractors to be aware of the importance of competition. Yet, this was not the case in the previously mentioned Harts v. Food Service case where the government failed to discuss any “deeply ingrained” procurement policies. Therefore, it is not clear when Christian will be applied, resulting in contractors perceiving the law as allowing the Government to escape its contractual
Because the Court of Claims ruled that there were certain clauses that are automatically assumed to be included in a contract (despite the clause being absent), the main risk that the Christian Doctrine poses is that contractors are unsure about the contract’s terms and conditions, presenting the risk that the doctrine will be inconsistently applied. Theoretically, however, the Christine Doctrine protects the contractor’s rights too. This paper will demonstrate how the Christian Doctrine creates frustrations in the procurement processes, results in an inconsistent application of the law, and protects the contractor.
Unclear Interpretation of Contract’s Terms and Conditions
Because the …show more content…
The principle of mutual agreement relies on the assumption that the terms and conditions are not only clearly worded, but physically present in the agreement. On the other hand, the Christian Doctrine allows “deeply ingrained” policies to be incorporated into the contract, regardless of whether these policies are expressly included in the contract. Contractors may understand they generally have to accept the terms and conditions that the government offers; however, contractors also have the expectation of being fully informed of terms and conditions before entering the contract (Shedd 1977, 21). Christian hinders the contractor’s ability to be fully informed about its …show more content…
It is well-known that the Christian Doctrine allows for the incorporation of the Changes Clause, the Termination for Convenience Clause, and the Termination for Default Clause. Nevertheless, Christian has also been cited in cases not pertaining to omitted mandatory clauses (Shedd 1977, 15). For instance, in the 1969 Schoenbroad v. the United States case, the importance of competition had been well-established. Judge Durfree concluded that The Armed Services Procurement Regulations, dating back to 1948, stressed the importance of competition when he ruled that the Government did have the right to terminate the contract since the competition principle was violated. However, by the time this ruling was made the Armed Services Procurement Regulations had been in use for almost twenty years; thus, it is not unreasonable to expect contractors to be aware of the importance of competition. Yet, this was not the case in the previously mentioned Harts v. Food Service case where the government failed to discuss any “deeply ingrained” procurement policies. Therefore, it is not clear when Christian will be applied, resulting in contractors perceiving the law as allowing the Government to escape its contractual