41 U.S.C. § 103
Commercial product
A prior section 103, Pub. L. 111–350, § 3,
Section effective, and repeal of former section 103 effective, on
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1950–2020 · leading case: Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “The court notes that the United States Code at 41 U.S.C. § 103 provides a substantially similar definition of commercial item.”
Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 904 F.3d 980 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “The term "commercial item" is defined at 41 U.S.C. § 103 and FAR 2.101, which apply government-wide.”
United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2009). “The CSA stated that war contracts “shall not be reopened, annulled, modified, set aside, or disregarded by any officer, employee, or agent of the United States,” 41 U.S.C. § 103 (m), while the FAA declares that courts should confirm arbitration awards “unless the award is…”
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 378 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “41 U.S.C. § 103 (h) (1944). The Termination Agreement between Ford and the Air Force provided for recovery of reimbursable costs that were not then known: (4) Claims of the Contractor against the Government which are based upon responsibility of the Contractor to Third parties .”
Nat'l Cored Forgings Co. v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 469 (Ct. Cl. 1953). “The Board granted a motion of OHE to dismiss the appeal as to it because OHE was not a "contracting agency" within the definition of section 3(g) of the Contract Settlement Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 103 (g), and held that Marloch had not proceeded "without a formal contract" within the…”
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 128 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1955). “It had defined in § 3, 41 U.S.C.A. § 103 , the words “termination,” “terminate” and “terminated” as referring to the termination or cancellation of work under a prime contract for the con *865 venience or at the option of the government.”
Tucson Airport Auth. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 136 F.3d 641 (9th Cir. 1998). “” 41 U.S.C. § 103 (m). The United States does not deny that the Modification Center Contract is subject to the CSA.”
Nat'l Cored Forgings Co. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 454 (Ct. Cl. 1955). “The Board granted a motion of OHE to dismiss the appeal as to it because OHE was not a “contracting agency” within the definition of section 3(g) of the Contract Settlement Act, supra, 41 U.S.C.A. § 103 (g), and held that Marloch had not proceeded “without a formal contract”…”
Tucson Airport Auth. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 922 F. Supp. 273 (D. Ariz. 1996). “or disregarding any final and conclusive settlement entered into under the Act: “The term ‘final and conclusive,’ as applied to any settlement, finding, or decision, means that such settlement, finding, or decision shall not be reopened, annulled, modified, set aside, or…”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Friedman, 485 F. Supp. 695 (D. Maryland 1979). “41 U.S.C. § 103 , dealing with war contracts, states: As used in this chapter— (a) The term “prime contract” means any contract, agreement, or purchase order heretofore or hereafter entered into by a contracting agency and connected with or related to the prosecution of the war;…”
Erceg v. United States, 179 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1950). “See 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 103 (h) and 103(d). Appellant’s pleading discloses that the contract was fully performed, and that the cause of action accrued as of December 1, 1942.”
Analytical Graphics, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “§ 2377 (b), the statute requires that “[t]he head of an agency shall ensure that procurement officials in that agency, to the maximum extent practicable,” “acquire commercial items or nondevelopmental items other than commercial items to meet the needs of the agency,” and…”
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.