be examined anew and in its own context.” Id. at 246. One court summarized the reported cases well when it wrote the following: [T]he criteria utilized in making such a 4 (E.D.Pa.1994) ("[T]he Company is an independent contractor with whom the Borough has contracted to provide firefighting services. The delegation of this function does not transform the Company into a state actor.”). 70 . I would reach the same conclusion even if I were to consider whether the Corporate Defendants' characteristics make any of them a de facto agency under the APA. Unlike the "modern day post exchange” at issue in Ellsworth Bottling Co. v. United States, 408 F.Supp. 280 (W.D.Okla.1975), none of the Corporate Defendants "has the authority to act with the sanction of the Government behind it.” Id. at 282 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, unlike the Professional Standards
holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims holding that the aafes was an agency under the apa where by statute its contracts were considered contracts with the federal government and any judgments against it were paid out of the federal treasury holding that tjaking claims rarely arise under government contracts because the government acts in its commercial or proprietary capacity in entering contracts rather than in its sovereign capacity accordingly remedies arise from the contracts themselves rather than from the constitutional protection of private property rights holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous holding that the government was not bound by its waivers in three prior contracts