Suchergebnisse

Avery Classics (Offsite) copy: No. 1 in a volume of 2 pamphlets. ; Avery Classics (Offsite) copy: Seymour B. Durst Old York Library Collection, Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Columbia University. ; Includes index to testimony--p. [30]. ; "March 3, 1863." ; Report submitted by R. Fenton, from the Select Committee to Inquire into the Contracts of the Government, along with testimony taken by the Committee. ; Caption title. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Transfer binders called: Air force procurement instructions--Contract cases federal--Comptroller general decisions--Developments--Pre-FAR regulations--Proposed regulations. ; Material of permanent nature is removed periodically and bound in separate volumes. ; Date from: Legal looseleafs in print, 1987. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Report covering legal aspects of government contracts, including procurement contracts, non-procurement contracts, concession contracts, public/private partnerships, intergovernmental agreements, and other arrangements.

"First printing, June 1942; second printing, Sept. 1942." ; "The material in this course has, for the most part, been taken bodily from the Government contracts service, published by Prentice-Hall, inc. Since these pages represent only a portion of the material in the complete service . there will be gaps in the page numbering." ; Mode of access: Internet.

AbstractThis article addresses the subject of indemnification provisions found in "old" (pre‐CERCLA) government contracts. Government facilities and their lawyers are increasingly being presented with ancient contract documents containing indemnification provisions that purport to shift the responsibility for paying for CERCLA or CERCLA‐like response actions from the contractor to the government. While the government should honor indemnification provisions where appropriate, it is unclear that these general provisions were intended to address environmental liabilities comprehended by CERCLA. The article points out a number of issues which should be considered, in the opinion of the author, before a government lawyer agrees that indemnification is proper. The article concludes that these old indemnification provisions must be reviewed in context and with full consideration of all arguments for and against their application.