Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States
276 U.S. 287, 1928 U.S. LEXIS 270, 48 S. Ct. 306 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Tucker Act, the United States cannot be held liable on a contract implied-in-law, such as a state's common law holdover tenancy. To bind the government to a lease for a subsequent fiscal year, an appropriation must be available and the government must affirmatively act to continue the lease, which is negated by an express disclaimer of intent to be bound for the full term.
Facts:
- In October 1921, the predecessor of the Goodyear Company leased premises in Ohio to the United States for the Veterans' Bureau, with a term ending June 30, 1926.
- The lease provided that it would automatically terminate if Congress did not appropriate funds for any succeeding fiscal year.
- In February 1923, Congress appropriated funds for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924.
- Before June 30, 1923, officials of the Veterans' Bureau informed the Goodyear Company that the United States would vacate the premises as of that date.
- On June 30, 1923, the officials decided they needed to occupy the premises beyond that date and continued in possession.
- At that time, the government officials stated they only intended to pay for the actual period of extended occupancy, not for the entire year.
- The Goodyear Company contended that by remaining in possession, the government was bound for the entire year ending June 30, 1924, under Ohio's holdover tenancy law.
- The United States occupied the premises until December 20, 1923, and paid rent through December 31, 1923.
Procedural Posture:
- The Goodyear Company filed an action against the United States in the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act to recover unpaid rent.
- The Court of Claims, the court of first instance, dismissed the petition on demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Goodyear Company appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the United States become liable for a full year's rent under a state's common law holdover tenancy doctrine when it continues to occupy leased premises into a new fiscal year after an appropriation is made, but expressly disclaims any intent to be bound for the full year?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Sanford
No. The United States is not liable for a full year's rent because to bind the government for a subsequent fiscal year, it must affirmatively continue the lease, and its express disclaimer negated any such continuation. Citing Leiter v. United States, the court reasoned that making a lease binding for a subsequent year requires not only an appropriation but also an affirmative act by the government to continue the lease, effectively making a new lease. Here, the officials of the Veterans’ Bureau expressly stated their intent not to pay rent beyond the actual period of occupancy. This statement negatived any intention to continue the lease for the entire year, leaving no basis for an implied-in-fact agreement. Furthermore, any liability under Ohio's holdover tenancy law would create a contract implied-in-law, which is not actionable against the United States under the Tucker Act. The Tucker Act requires a contract express or implied-in-fact for a valid claim against the government.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Holmes
Yes (implicitly). The United States should be liable for the full year's rent because it cannot accept the benefits of a contract while repudiating its legal consequences under the governing state law. The United States occupied the premises as a lessee under a contract. The law governing that contract included the consequence that holding over created a new one-year term. The statement by government agents that they did not intend to be bound was merely a statement that they did not want to accept the legal consequence of their act of holding over. Since an appropriation was available, there was no legal barrier, and the United States should be bound by the terms implied by its actions under the law.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that federal law and the specific requirements for government contracting override state common law doctrines in suits against the United States. It sharply distinguishes between contracts implied-in-fact, which require a mutual agreement inferred from conduct, and contracts implied-in-law (quasi-contracts), which are legal fictions imposed to prevent unjust enrichment. The decision reinforces the high bar for establishing a contractual claim against the government under the Tucker Act, requiring clear, affirmative acts by authorized officials to create a binding obligation, thereby protecting the public fisc from unintended liabilities.
