1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Material Misrepresentation Dooms Contract From the Get-Go

Material Misrepresentation Dooms Contract From the Get-Go

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.07.19

In ABS Dev. Corp. (January 7, 2019), the ASBCA found a contract void ab initio because the contractor’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation about staffing. Although failure to perform in accordance with an incorporated proposal is generally only a breach, the Board noted that where a contractor obtains a contract through a material misrepresentation––with no intention of performing in accordance with the representation––the contract is void ab initio. Here, the Board found ABS’ contract void ab initio because: (1) ABS, to address contracting officer concerns regarding staffing approach in its proposal, represented that it would directly hire personnel to perform on-site work; (2) ABS did not have any intention to adhere to such representation; and (3) had ABS not made such representation, the contracting officer would not have awarded ABS the contract. Because no valid contract ever existed, ABS’ claim for additional compensation was denied and the Government's assessment of liquidated damages was likewise denied.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....