The Conflict Of A Cut Above And Angel

The Conflict Of A Cut Above And AngelISSUE(S): Generally, when one thinks of an issue, the issue is the question that the court must answer in order to resolve the dispute between the parties. We will frame this issue by identifying the rule of law that the court must apply and the key fact(s) that will bear on the court’s resolution of the issue. The issue in this case is, Does A Cut Above owe remuneration to Angel, given the incident between Angel and A Cut Above—when Angel clearly did not deliver the goods on time as a breach of contract?FACTS: There are two types of facts to include here: (1) Procedural history. This is the story of the case’s progress in the courts, from the time the plaintiff filed its complaint in court, to the appeal to the court that made the final decision in the case. The procedural history of this case are the following. On July 8, 2008, Angel and Cut Above entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of a specialized crane. Pursuant to the contract Cut Above is to pay Angel $100,000.00 for the manufacture of a crane with special hydraulics that will assist Cut Above in constructing its client’s addition over the water, as the hospital is located on a Pensacola inlet, and the rehabilitation center is to be housed in the new addition. 

Cut Above paid Angel a deposit of $50,000.00 with the remainder to be paid to Angel upon delivery of the crane, per specifications, on January 15, 2010. January 15, 2010, came and went and the crane did not arrive. The failure of the crane to arrive set the project back initially by one week. Following a conversation with Angel’s executive Cut Above’s understanding from the executive was that the crane would not be completed until January 31, 2010, at which time it was to be shipped via truck FOB the construction site. 

There is a provision in Cut Above’s contract with its client, Pensacola Memorial Hospital, that the project was to be completed by March 30, 2010, and that every day the project was delayed past that time, Cut Above would be assessed $500.00 per day, said assessment being deducted from the hospital’s final payment. Cut Above was charged $3,500.00 for a 7-day delay. 

Based on the foregoing Cut Above rented a crane to complete as much of the project as possible until the specialized crane arrived from Angel. The crane arrived on February 4, 2010, and Cut Above accepted delivery of the crane but withheld from its final payment to Angel its cost of renting another crane, as well as anticipated delay costs on the project. Cut Above withheld $5,000.00 for the cost of the crane rental as well as $5,000.00 for the delay costs. (2) Legally relevant facts. These are the events giving rise to the parties’ dispute that the court found necessary to its decision. The legally relevant facts in this case are that A Cut Above did not pay Angel for its work completed although it was late in delivery, and that Angel probably owes A Cut Above some money for having failed to deliver its goods on time.RULE(S): The Rule is the law that the court applied in the case to achieve the holding were the cases of Allied Materials amp. Equipment Co. Inc. v. the United States, as well as Air-A-Plane Corp. v. the United States, regarding breach of contract. HOLDING(S): The Holding is the court’s answer to the issue posed in the case, in this case, a factual reason why the court answered the issue the way it did. The holding stands on its own. The holding for this case is that A Cut Above does owe Angel its remuneration even though there were some fees that Angel should pay A Cut Above.REASONING: Probably the most important part of the case brief, the reasoning section describes how the court resolved the issue. This issue was resolved via the Judge ordering A Cut Above to pay Angel compensatory damages and for Angel to make remuneration to A Cut Above for any unpaid costs associated with the delay of the project. BIBLIOGRAPHYAllied Materials amp. Equipment Co. Inc. v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 406, 569 F.2d 562 (1978) (per curiam).Air-A-Plane Corp. v. United States, 187 Ct. Cl. 269, 408 F.2d 1030 (1969).