About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

6 Alaska L. Rev. 227 (1989)
Municipality of Anchorage v. Hitachi Cable, Ltd.- Time for Adoption of a Void Contract Remedy for Alaska Public Contracting Authorities

handle is hein.journals/allr6 and id is 233 raw text is: MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORA GE V HITACHI
Municipality of Anchorage v. Hitachi Cable, Ltd.1 presented the
District Court for the Central District of California2 with an impor-
tant Alaska state law question regarding the public contracting pro-
cess. The district court, on a motion for summary judgment, initially
decided that the Alaska Supreme Court would adopt the equitable
remedy of void contract when a public contract was awarded and
administered through bribery, but that a defendant charged with brib-
ery could assert the unclean hands defense.3 The void contract rem-
edy allows a public entity to recover all monies it paid out on a
contract with no set-off for the values of goods or services received.
During oral argument on reconsideration, however, the district court
intimated that it might vacate its earlier ruling and allow trial on the
Copyright © 1989 by Alaska Law Review
* Attorney, Birch, Horton, Bittner, Cherot & Anderson, Anchorage, Alaska;
J.D. 1981, University of Oregon; B.A., magna cum laude, 1970, M.S.W., 1973, Uni-
versity of Michigan.
Copies of all unpublished sources cited in this article are on file in the offices of
the Alaska Law Review.
1. Municipality of Anchorage v. Hitachi Cable, Ltd. (D. Alaska July 16, 1981)
(No. A81-347).
2. Judge James M. Fitzgerald, federal district court judge in Anchorage, Alaska,
transferred the case sua sponte to Judge William Matthew Byrne, federal district court
judge for the central district of California effective April 1, 1985. Pretrial Order, Mu-
nicipality of Anchorage v. Hitachi Cable, Ltd. (D. Alaska Mar. 29, 1985) (No. A81-
347). Judge Byrne had presided over the criminal case in which Hitachi Cable, Ltd.,
pled guilty to fifty criminal offenses arising out of telephone cable sales to the Munici-
pality of Anchorage.
3. Order Regarding Motions for Summary Judgment at 4-14, Municipality of
Anchorage v. Hitachi Cable, Ltd. (D. Alaska Sept. 1, 1987) (No. A81-347) [hereinaf-
ter Order Re Motions for Summary Judgment].

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most