Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[clarencebeaks21]

“The NWS …was ultra vires because it [potentially] violated the basic concepts of common contract law.”

First, the Supreme Court’s holding in Collins found that the NWS was NOT ultra vires. The DC District court is duty-bound to follow that precedent. And Lamberth has already expressly done this on remand, which undercuts your premise.

Second, your premise appears to be: all breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, are necessarily also ultra vires. This is a false assertion, and is a fallacy of equivalency.

Some acts that are not ultra vires can still breach the implied covenant.

For example, Lamberth’s opinion before the 2nd trial explains that the NWS was *not* ultra vires, yet might still breach the implied covenant. Judge Lamberth cites to Collins and follows it, rejecting defendants’ own false equivalency assertions, while quipping politely ‘this is not the knock out punch defendants were hoping for.’

“Therefore the NWS … violate(s) common contract law and cannot continue.”

The Lamberth jury awarded damages, but no injunctive relief was requested or awarded. Nor does the precedent in this instance compel a different expectation. (To then attempt to extend the same misunderstanding to a different contract’s context is to simply repeat the error.)

“I believe this is what the judgment delay is all about.”

You are free to believe what you wish, but those theories would be better were they not undercut by Lamberth’s own opinions.