United States v. Amdahl

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a surety is subrogated to the rights of the prime contractor and the subcontractor, “who might have superior equitable rights to the retainage but no right to sue the defendant”
• construing Pearlman in harmony with Munsey, so as to avoid conflict between the two decisions
• examining whether contracting officer acted responsibly in making payments to a contractor that did not pay its bills
• rejecting the inference from Pearlman that if subcontractors have rights to which the surety may be subrogated, then the subcontractors should be able to assert their rights directly against the government
• during performance of contract, when government agency notified of contractor’s nonpayment of obligations, “the representative is faced with the task of balancing the Government’s interests in proceeding with the contract, against possible harm to the surety”
• after satisfying the payment bond, the surety “is subrogated to the rights of the contractor who could sue the [government since it was in privity of contract with the United States”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).