Enid, there are many court cases involving "wrongful termination." If a party sues for wrongful termination and is successful, I believe that the result is a breach of contract action, with resulting remedies (for commercial contracts - US Government contracts contain a "Termination for Convenience" Clause, to avoid a "breach of contract").

You can also look up the "Uniform Commercial Code" on the internet. Breach of Contract is covered there, as I remember.

Suggest engaging a lawyer, if the party believes they were wrongfully terminated.

does anyone have any information on "wrongful termination" in the civilian/public sector? Any info is appreciated.

There are several articles on contract terminations in the April 1997 issue of Contract Management magazine. Maybe one of these can provide guidance.

Brad, If we are talking about a TFC and the Government has accepted and paid for supplies, why wouldn't the Government retain its post acceptance rights ? For a warranty, the enforcement action would be the same as if the contract were closed out and a warranty had to be enforced.

Under a full TFC, the Government still pays for partial performance. As such, the post acceptance rights survive the TFC. Happy sails! Joel

By Joel Hoffman on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 08:01 am:

Brad - Based on personal experience, I know that warranties survive a TFD in construction contracts - however, we usually have a performance bond, which we act through to enforce a warranty, fraud, latent defect, "gross mistake as amounts to fraud", etc.

Of course, discovery and proof of the last three nullifies a prior "final acceptance." The Government retains such rights, regardless of whether a contract is active or discharged, active or expired warranty. Happy Sails! Joel

Thanks. I agree with Vern also, but could find nothing addressing this item specifically in the regs, GAO findings, etc. I have a colleague who believes that in order for a warranty on previously delivered supplies to survive a termination, it must be a "partial" termination as opposed to a termination in whole, clearly identifying the warranty provisions as surviving requirements. An interesting opinion, but not sufficient to get him the steak dinner he has wagered.

Brad

By John Ford on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 11:10 am:

Brad, I agree with Vern. Usually warranties provide protection against defects in workmanship or materials for a stated period of time. In addition there may be other remedies for defective supplies. You didn't indicate whether the contract is fixed price or cost type. If it is fixed price, look at the FAR Inspection of Supplies (Fixed Price) clause. It allows the Government to revoke acceptance of supplies if they have a latent defect, acceptance was induced by fraud or gross mistake amounting to fraud, or for other reasons if specified in the contract. If acceptance is revoked, the contractor must repair or replace the supplies at its own expense, subject to certain credits in some situations. The Government has more limited rights if the contract is a cost type but check the FAR Inspection of Supplies (Cost Reimbursement)clause.

By Vern Edwards on Wednesday, January 19, 2000 - 10:35 am:

Warranties of supplies or services usually outlive the contract under which the supplies or services were procured. I would think that any warranty applicable to supplies or services accepted before the termination would remain in effect in accordance with the terms of the warranty.

Do warranty obligations, against supplies accepted by the Government before termination, expire once a contract has been terminated in whole (assuming the warranty is silent with respect to terminations)?

If so, how would one ensure such obligations survive?