redistributes the risk that the plaintiff agreed to bear. The parties raise an additional argument that is limited to transportation costs. Plaintiff contends that Mi’. Faires, a contracting officer representative, authorized additional transportation expenses. Defendant contends that Mr. Faires did not have actual authority to approve such expenditures, and, therefore, the government incurs no liability. For the government to be bound, the person who enters into or modifies the contract must have actual authority. See Janowsky v. United States, 133 F.3d 888, 891 (Fed.Cir. 1998). Apparent authority, which is essentially the argument plaintiff makes, will not suffice to bind the government. See Goolsby v. United States, 21 Cl.Ct. 629, 631 (1990). But see Janowsky, 133 F.3d at 891 (<HOLDING>). The record is replete with evidence that Mr.
recognizing strict product liability actions recognizing tavernkeepers liability recognizing that injury is a prerequisite to liability recognizing that liability arises if government ratifies unauthorized act recognizing that an otherwise tortious act of interference with a business relationship will not subject the putative tortfeasor to liability if its act is privileged