of the Assignment are the alleged modified remittance clause, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13-14, and the Notice of Assignment that bears a stamp reflecting receipt by the FHA on May 28, 2002, at 12:47 p.m., id. Ex. C. Aside from any writings, the government made six consecutive payments to Travelers from June 2002 until November 2002, pursuant to the Assignment. Id. 1115. Case law has held that it is the totality of the circumstances that establish whether the government accepted an assignment. See Tuftco, 614 F.2d at 745 (ruling that the government had waived protection under the Assignment of Contract Act because the contracting officer wrote “Assignment acknowledged” at the bottom of the notification letter from the assignor); Am. Fin. Assocs., Ltd. v. United States, 5 Cl.Ct. 761, 771-72 (1984) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, plaintiffs aver that the
holding that place of performance of a life insurance contract was the state where premiums were made payable even if the contract was made in another state holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed holding that an assignment was recognized by the government because the government issued a check made payable to the assignee as payment under the contract holding that a payment made by certified check rather than the customary regular check was outside the ordinary course of dealings between the parties holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract