U.S. Code » Title 41 » Subtitle II— Other Advertising and Contract Provisions › CHAPTER 65— CONTRACTS FOR MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, ARTICLES, AND EQUIPMENT EXCEEDING $10,000

41 U.S.C. § 6503

Breach or violation of required contract terms

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 41 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Applicable Breach or Violation.—This section applies in case of breach or violation of a representation or stipulation included in a contract under section 6502 of this title.(b)Liquidated Damages.—In addition to damages for any other breach of the contract, the party responsible for a breach or violation described in subsection (a) is liable to the Federal Government for the following liquidated damages:(1) An amount equal to the sum of $10 per day for each individual under 16 years of age and each incarcerated individual knowingly employed in the performance of the contract.(2) An amount equal to the sum of each underpayment of wages due an employee engaged in the performance of the contract, including any underpayments arising from deductions, rebates, or refunds.(c)Cancellation and Alternative Completion.—In addition to the Federal Government being entitled to damages described in subsection (b), the agency of the United States that made the contract may cancel the contract and make open-market purchases or make other contracts for the completion of the original contract, charging any additional cost to the original contractor.(d)Recovery of Amounts Due.—An amount due the Federal Government because of a breach or violation described in subsection (a) may be withheld from any amounts owed the contractor under any contract under section 6502 of this title or may be recovered in a suit brought by the Attorney General.(e)Employee Reimbursement for Underpayment of Wages.—An amount withheld or recovered under subsection (d) that is based on an underpayment of wages as described in subsection (b)(2) shall be held in a special deposit account. On order of the Secretary, the amount shall be paid directly to the underpaid employee on whose account the amount was withheld or recovered. However, an employee’s claim for payment under this subsection may be entertained only if made within one year from the date of actual notice to the contractor of the withholding or recovery.(Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3808.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

6503

41:36.

June 30, 1936, ch. 881, § 2, 49 Stat. 2037.

In subsection (b)(1), the words “individual under 16 years of age” are substituted for “male person under sixteen years of age or each female person under eighteen years of age” to reflect the interpretation of this provision subsequent to enactment of civil rights laws such as section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42:2000e–2), as carried out by the Department of Labor through 41 C.F.R. Part 50–201.104. The words “incarcerated individual” are substituted for “convict laborer” because of the exception to convict labor that satisfies the conditions of 18:1761(c). Section 1761 does not apply to non-incarcerated convicts.

Subsection (b)(2) is substituted for “a sum equal to the amount of any deductions, rebates, refunds, or underpayment of wages due to any employee engaged in the performance of such contract” for consistency in the chapter.

In subsection (c), the words “made the contract” and “make other contracts” are substituted for “entering into such contract” and “enter into other contracts”, respectively, for consistency in the revised title.

In subsection (d), the words “suit brought by the Attorney General” are substituted for “suits brought in the name of the United States of America by the Attorney General thereof ” to eliminate unnecessary words.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (54 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, 345 F. Supp. 3d 682 (E.D. Va. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC, 345 F. Supp. 3d 682 (E.D. Va. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 41 U.S.C. § 6503 (b). Any amount "due the Federal Government because of a breach or violation .”
Rasmussen v. State of South Dakota, No. 3:22-cv-03021 (D.S.D. Apr. 18, 2023). · cites it 6× “§ 6502 (providing the required contract terms for “Ta] contract made by an agency of the United States for the manufacture or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment, in an amount exceeding $10,000[,]” which are the contracts for breach of which 41 U.S.C. §…”
Stockstill v. Fresno Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. 1:19-cv-00889 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020). · cites it 4× “5 • 41 U.S.C. § 6503 , which is a law that applies to breaches or violations of contracts 6 made by agencies of the United States.”
Bello v. Capital One Bank (usa) N.A., No. 1:20-cv-01218 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2021). · cites it 4× “Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Mr. Bello alleges Capital One violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by falsely reporting to the three major credit bureaus that he was late in making his credit card payments and when he disputed these reports,…”
Myers v. Amazon.com Servs. LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00920 (N.D. Tex. May 22, 2025). · cites it 4× “com Services LLC (“Amazon”), seeking relief under 41 U.S.C. § 6503 for breach of contract and disability discrimination based on the termination of his employment; failure to accommodate his disability; unequal terms and conditions of employment; and retaliation, all stemming…”
Abreu v. Howard Univ., No. 2021-0397 (D.D.C. June 17, 2022). · cites it 3× “1 The pleading includes additional factual allegations and a new theory that the University violated the 1 Plaintiff once again includes an erroneous citation to 41 U.S.C. § 6503 in his First Amended Complaint.”
Smith v. Osvaldik, No. 1:23-cv-01488, 2023 WL 8698359 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2023). · cites it 3× “41 U.S.C. § 6503 21 Plaintiff’s also lists 41 U.”
Pfeister v. Action Prop. Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:21-cv-04473 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021). · cites it 3× “12 In Claim One, Plaintiff avers a breach of contract under 41 U.S.C. § 6503 related to 13 Defendant’s failure to allow her to inspect records.”
Williams v. Jones, No. 1:22-cv-21816 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2022). · cites it 3× “Breach of Contract Under 41 U.S.C. § 6503 Williams alleges a violation of 41 U.”
Barlow-Johnson v. Tinsley, No. 3:22-cv-03215 (C.D. Ill. June 12, 2023). · cites it 3× “BACKGROUND On October 20, 2022, Plaintiffs Kendra Barlow-Johnson and Justin Dennis filed a pro se Complaint against Defendant William Tinsley for: breach or violation of required contract/implied warranty of habituality in violation of 41 U.S.C. § 6503 (Count I); tort claims in…”
Weng v. Nat'l Sci. Found., No. 1:22-cv-00998 (W.D. Mich. May 22, 2023). · cites it 3× “§ 171 – TORT” and 41 U.S.C. § 6503 and state a claim of “unfair business practice” under 15 U.”
Antonelli v. Gloucester Cnty. Hous. Auth., No. 1:19-cv-16962, 2019 WL 5485449 (D.N.J. Oct. 25, 2019). · cites it 3× “; (4) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”); (4) 41 U.S.C § 6503; and (6) 18 U.S.C. § 1341 .”
Show all 60 citing cases →
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.