Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd - Case Study Example

Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd Name Name of the institution 15 September 2015 Executive Summary All courts across the globe enforces laws that ensures justice is served to the parties involved in a case. How these courts enact the law is much more dependent on many factors with the plaintiff and defendant used being the prime factor. As such, in the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, various facts claimed by the plaintiff acted as key contribution in regard to enforcement of the court rule. This essay, therefore, reviews the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, a case that is based on contractual agreement and the judgment of the case. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 In the world of business, a contract is described as an agreement which create obligations that are enforceable by law. Basically, a contract involves two parties who informally create legal commitment between them. Contracts are undertaking that are applied by the law. In various states cross the globe, the law delivers remedies if a contract is terminated or breached. Contract agreements come to existence when there is a rise of a duty involving one party. More so, contractual agreements are mainly influenced by mutual understanding between two parties. In the process of making a contract, the parties involved reflects on adequate concerns. As such, adequate considerations are the benefits that drives each party to enter into a contract. Also, such considerations make the contract to have a lawful binding in regard to the promise swapped by the parties involved in the contract. Therefore, in the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, one can identify the existence of a promise between the two. However, as the two parties had entered into a contract, one party was not committed to the promise. Therefore, this paper focuses on reviewing the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, and the ruling that was applied by the court in regard to the case. Section one Facts of the case In relation to the case, it can be identified that, damages are reward and not disciplinary in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the damages of the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, can be recognized by identifying the following facts. To begin with, while reviewing the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, one can identify the existence of a contract between Amann and commonwealth1. The contract that was entered by the two parties was for 1Aman to provide surveillance air travel for a period of three years. Again, Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, did not perform the contractual responsibility. As such, the company did not execute its obligations when the time for performing the task came. As a result, the commonwealth dismissed the contract. Consequentially, Amann Company sued the commonwealth for the discharge of the contract. The key reason why Amann Company sued commonwealth was to recover the costs that were incurred while preparing the airplane. Another, facts that can be derived from the case, is that in the case of contract renewal, the Amann Company, would have made essential benefits. However, the Amann Company did not have enough prove to show that the contract was renewable1. Therefore, as it appears from the findings of the case, Amann Aviation Pty Ltd was the plaintiff and Commonwealth was the defendant. On the other hand, the plaintiff sustained heavy expenses in the process of preparation. In addition, as a result of contract termination the costs incurred in preparing the airplane imposed heave losses to the Company. As the plaintiff did not have adequate prove to show that the contract could have been renewed, the company pursued support from the court of law. Relevant law relating to the case With the cases of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, evolving as a contractual agreement case, it can be relevantly be related to the rule of common law. In this context, the rule of common law is applied in the cases whereby one party sustain a damage as a reason of a break of a contract1. Also, in the common law the reward is basically money with respect to the loss in the form of compensation. As such, in the case Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, a damage to the plaintiff was identified as a result of contract termination. With various principles of law, the case is hugely related to common law. In the common law, the award of losses as a result of contract termination is basically provided to the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiffs is protected by the common law in the case of contract termination. More so, in a contract, the common law defines the losses suffered by the plaintiffs as an expectation compensations. Therefore, in paying much attention to the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, it can be related to the category of common law. In the case, a damage is incurred and in the common law, a damage is referred to as expectation compensation. In this context, the Amann Company entered into an agreement with the expectation to make profit. However, with the commonwealth terminating the contract Amann Company endure some heavy damages. As the principle of common law states, the party entering into a contract will expect to make the profit even though in the case of a contract termination. As this emerges as the situation in the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, one can simply relate the case to the rule of common law. Section two Legal arguments raised In the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, both parties have expressed their arguments so as to support their perspectives in regard to the case. In this context, both parties presented the court with the facts and evidence that influenced the judgment of the case. Therefore, one of the major legal argument that is raised by the case is the contract termination by the defendant. Also, the case raised legal arguments in regard to claims for the losses that outstretched as a result contract termination by the defendant. The key reason why the plaintiffs raise the claims arguments is because companies want to be awarded compensation in the form of money so as to cover the losses incurred. Moreover, the case have raised the issue of the extent to which reliance damage can be recovered. As such, in the case, if the plaintiff incurred a loss of a certain amount of money, he or she will only be compensated the loss as the cost wasted in the damage. More so, in relation to this issue of reliance damage, the plaintiff cannot be paid the performing contract costs. Additionally, the case have raised the aspect of contract renewal in the case whereby the defendant terminates the contract. In this case, Commonwealth claimed that Amann Aviation mainly focused on materializing the profit in the case of contract renewal. Therefore, this would have benefited Amann Aviation for commercial purposes. Commonwealth, claimed that then Aviation Company was focused in gaining a second contract with them. However, the ruling of the case entitled the Aviation Company to recover all its lost costs. Judgment of the case In summary, the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, was ruled by a primary judge. As such, the trail judge decided to rule the case in favor of the plaintiff. In this situation, the court ruled the hearing for the Amann Aviation Company and declared that the defendant have caused damages as a result of the discharge. In the case, the majority of the judges who attended the hearing believed that the government was not able to demonstrate that the Aviation Company would have not made some earnings in respect to the contract. As such, the primary judge declared that, the Aviation Company would have earned a favorable profit. However, in hearing both parties the judge noted that, commonwealth had a chance of discharging the contract hence the judge reduced the damage fee by half.2 Therefore, in enforcing the ruling in this case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, the chief judge awarded the Amann Company compensations for the damage of profit but refused to award the cost that the company incurred in expenditure. The expenditure cost represented the bulk of the losses claimed by the plaintiff. As a result, of the court not awarding Amann the expenditure loss, the Company appealed the case to the High Court. Upon filing an appeal, Amann was successful and the court awarded the company with the compensation of squandered expenditure. Section three Role and purpose of the court With the court making the ruling that required for the plaintiff to be compensated by the defendant, it signifies a variety of functions that are enacted by the court or any tribunal. One of the key roles that the court has played in relation to the case, is that the court has enforced the law in order to solve the dispute that could have occurred between the two parties. More so, in relation to the case the court have played the role of allowing the plaintiff to file for the appeal. Due to such, the plaintiff was able to gain the expenditure losses from the defendant. Also, another major role the court have played is to decide the case. As it is clear from the case, the two parties 2were in some sort of argument that led to one party to file a case2. As a result, the courted acted in a manner that enabled both parties solve the problem with a valid ruling. Furthermore, in order for a team of judges to deliver fair ruling, it is vital for the judges to understand the purpose and the responsibility of the court or a tribunal. The purpose of a court or tribunal should not be defined as the efficiency influence of the court. Therefore, in regard to the case, it can be identified that the main purpose of the court is to provide justice. Also, in relevant to the case it is the purpose of the court or the tribunal to award the right person in accordance to the ruling. Lastly, it is the purpose of the court to ensure that the Companies such as Amann, is protected against the government. In summary, in relation to the case, it can implied that, it is the purpose of the court to ensure that winning party in a case accept justice obliged and in the case whereby the losing party does not accept the ruling, the court is ready to accept an appeal. Scope of the relevant court or tribunal Over the past years, Australasian has been an intercession friendly in the case of enforcing rulings in the court of law. This is because arbitration was in there even in the situation whereby common law were not implemented. In focusing keenly on the judicial system in the Australasian nations, the High Court is the highest court which deals with strong cases. The court, deals with cases that are originally from the high court and as well as the cases that are appealed3. However, High Court in the Australasian is the final court that an individual can appeal any case. Furthermore, one of the key roles of the Court is to interpret laws especially the common law in the entire Australia. Finally, the court has an obligation of developing new common law across all the countries and their regions3. Also, the court purposefully interpret the constitution and offers key significant implications of the Australians constitution. 3Conclusion In conclusion, therefore, in a contract damages are meant to be compensated and not to offer any form of punishment. In the Australasian nations and their territories, cases related to contract arguments are categorically described under the common law. Moreover, parties enter into a contract with the expectation to gain profit. As such, in the case whereby plaintiffs win and accept the court ruling the award is compensation inform of money. Therefore, in commercial dealing between two parties whereby one is set to supply aircraft commodities or any other goods, the part will anticipate to gain profit. In addition, to the recovery of any cost that is incurred by the termination of the contract, it is the obligation of the party discharging the promise to pay the other party. Furthermore, losses that are recoverable are at the time constituted to the expenditure the plaintiff incurred. The role of the court or tribunal in the cases of contractual agreement is to ensure, dispute are resolved between the parties are resolved and the parties involved accept the court verdict. In the case of dissatisfaction by either party, the court encourages for appeal and upon hearing the appeal a final ruling is passed. In summary, in focusing on the case of Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, the plaintiff (Amann Aviation Company) won the case. The principal judge ordered the government to pay for damages upon contract discharging. Bibliography Williams, Daniel. The Layman's Lawbook. Grenada: Government Printery, 2002. Glenn, H. Patrick. On Common Laws. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Unistudyguide.com. Last modified 2015. Accessed September 15, 2015. http://www.unistudyguide.com/commonwealth v amann. Thinkswap.com. Last modified 2015. Accessed September 15, 2015. http://thinkswap.com/au/unsw/law/law1071-contrcts-1/summary-notes. Er.net,. Last modified 2015. Accessed September 15, 2015. http://er.net/2011/11/expectation-damages-commonwealth-v.html?m=1. Read More