Discourse Ambiguity in a Contract Fraud Case: US v. David Smith
Discourse Ambiguity in a Contract Fraud Case: US v. David Smith
Government contracts can be very complex, as illustrated by this 1997 case involving a Texas-based manufacturer of helicopters. It was made even more complicated by the fact that the company was a subsidiary of a French corporation that could legitimately make sales to other countries without the Texas company’s involvement or knowledge. The contract in question was eligible for the US Foreign Military Financing Program (FMF), created to promote the interests of domestic American businesses by providing funds to eligible allies to support their costs. Smith, president of the US company, was the target of a federal investigation concerning his knowledge of possible misuse of FMF funding. Over a two-year period, one of Smith’s employees secretly tape-recorded conversations with Smith that the government believed showed his complicity in contract fraud. Linguistic analysis of the ambiguity of the words and expressions used in these conversations, among other things, showed that Smith was not guilty.
Keywords: ambiguity, contract fraud, government contracts, linguistic analysis
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
