In the case of United States v. R.F. Ball Construction Co., Inc., et al, 1957, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contractor who had been paid in full for work done on a government project could be held liable under the False Claims Act for submitting false claims to the government. The court ruled that even though the contractor had been paid in full and there were no outstanding claims against him, he could still be held liable under this act because it is not necessary for actual damages or loss to have occurred as long as fraudulent conduct has taken place. This ruling set an important precedent by establishing that liability under this law does not depend on whether any financial harm has actually resulted from fraudulent actions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. R.F. Ball Construction Co., Inc., et al., argued that the majority's decision to hold a contractor liable for damages caused by a subcontractor was inconsistent with established principles of contract law and federal procurement regulations. The dissent pointed out that under normal circumstances, contractors are not held responsible for the actions or negligence of their independent subcontractors unless they have retained some control over their operations. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest such control existed between Ball Construction and its subcontractor. Furthermore, it was noted that federal procurement regulations explicitly state that government contracts should be interpreted and enforced according to common law principles – which would absolve Ball Construction from liability in this instance - rather than being subject to special rules created by courts on an ad hoc basis as seen here.