United States v. Goldman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that government officials, none of whom were “formally designated as a contracting officer,” may be found based on “facts and circumstances” to have contracting authority “inherent or implied in the authority” they had to procure supplies in emergencies
• finding that a trial was necessary to determine the authority of government personnel and whether an implied-in-fact contract arose
• remanding for the trial court “to decide whether a contract implied-in-fact arose in the circumstances.”
• denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the government officials ordering the work at issue, though not designated contracting officers, may have had “inherent or implied” authority in “emergency firefighting situations” to procure supplies needed for the emergency
• gov- ernment is bound when the signing government official has implied authority or ratification
• government is bound when the signing government official has implied authority or ratification

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).