40 U.S.C. § 544

Validity of transfer instruments

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 40 CasesGoogle Scholar

A deed, bill of sale, lease, or other instrument executed by or on behalf of an executive agency purporting to transfer title or other interest in surplus property under this chapter is conclusive evidence of compliance with the provisions of this chapter concerning title or other interest of a bona fide grantee or transferee for value and without notice of lack of compliance.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1982–2017 · leading case: Int'l Air Response v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 604 (Fed. Cl. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Int'l Air Response v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 604 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 4× “Despite the contracting officer’s determination, plaintiff contends, that 40 U.S.C. § 544 (2000), prohibits the Government from unwinding this transaction.”

Fluor Enter., Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 461 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “See 40 U.S.C. § 544 (1988) (“The agency head shall negotiate a contract with the highest qualified firm for architectural and engineering services at compensation which the agency head determines is fair and reasonable to the Government.”

Int'l Air Response, Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 460 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 4× “Following the completion of a one-day, two-witness trial, the court concluded that plaintiff proved that it was a bona fide purchaser for value of the subject aircraft, thereby qualifying for the safe harbor provided by 40 U.S.C. § 544 (2000), and that defendant did not…”

C & C/Manhattan v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, 40 V.I. 51 (1999). · cites it 2× “40 U.S.C. § 544 (1986). After the design is completed, the Government separately procures a contract for the construction of the facility in accordance with the competitive bidding requirements contained in 41 U.”

Teton Historic Aviation Found. v. United States Dep't of Def., 248 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D.D.C. 2017). “This record explanation for DOD’s change in policy more than satisfies the APA! Finally, plaintiffs argue that applying the November 2008 policy change, as it affected plaintiffs’ existing contract, violates 40 U.S.C. § 544 , which protects the title of bona fide purchasers of…”

Hack v. Dep't of Energy, 538 F. Supp. 1098 (D.D.C. 1982). · cites it 4× “40 U.S.C. § 544 . DOE implements the Brooks Act by regulations found at 41 C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.