Introduction
A case brief is normally a summary of the undertakings of a given case. In a case brief, the writer finds ways of presenting the arguments of a case in a systematic way but in brief. It involves identifying issues, ascertaining the decisions and judgments made as well as an analysis of one’s reasoning behind the court’s ruling. This paper is therefore on case briefs of two landmark cases of the Supreme Court.
The United States v. Dekonty Corporation
Case name and citation
This was a case by the government of the United State of America which is the appellant versus a company known as Dekonty Corporation which is the appellee. It is therefore an appeal by the United States government originating from a ruling made by the Armed Services Board of Contracts Appeals (ABSCA). The case is numbered 922F 2d. 826 (1991).
Key Facts of the case
In this case, the government of the United States of America made an appeal from the judgment made by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board). In the ruling made by the Board, the government was found to have breached the contract signed with Dekonty Corporation. The government was noted to have intended to withhold the payment to be made to the corporation.
According to the facts of the case, the government through the United States Navy entered into a contract with Dekonty Corporation to put up a child care facility. This facility was bound to be located at the Los Angeles Air Force Station. However, in the process of the construction, the designated Resident Officer in charge of the Construction referred to as ROICC, cautioned that the US Navy might have the contract terminated because of non-payment. As such, “Dekonty Corporation halted the construction process and wrote a memo to the Commanding Officer of the Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM)” (OpenJurist 1).
This was backed by subsequent follow-ups on the contract’s process by the contracting officer and the ROICC making Dekonty abandon the performance formally. Dekonty made allegations that the US Navy had failed to make progressive payment as scheduled thus breaching the contract.
At first the case was heard by the Armed Services Board of Contracts Appeals for judgment to be made with regard to the contract issue. This board found the government guilty of breaching the contract in failing to make the scheduled payments. Later on, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue(s) Presented before Court
When the case was forwarded to the Supreme Court, the board was found out to have made an erroneous decision. This was in accordance to the unsupported evidence that the board had relied on.
“As a result, the Supreme Court set forth a number of breaches; When one party to [a]… contract absolutely refuses to perform his contract, and before the time arrives for performance distinctly and unqualifiedly communicates that refusal to the other party, that other party can, if he choose, treat that refusal as a breach and commence an action at once therefor” (OpenJurist 1).
Another breach of contract that the court held was;
“Mere assertion that the party will be unable, or will refuse to perform his contract, is not sufficient; it must be a distinct and unequivocal absolute refusal to perform the promise, and must be treated and acted upon as such by the party to whom the promise was made….” (OpenJurist 1).
Holding of the Court
The court therefore held that the decision made by the Board was wrong and that the government of the United States was not bound to pay damages. As such, the case was reversed.
Court’s Rationale or Reasoning for its Decision
In making its decision, the Supreme Court relied on the evidence accorded to it, which in this case was not substantial. The court looked at the memorandum sent on July 19, 1985 and the telephone conversation as at July 25, 1985 among other facts of evidence.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena et al
Case name and citation
This was a Supreme Court case of Adarand Constructors versus Federico Pena who was the Secretary of Transportation. This case is numbered 515 U.S. 200 (1995).
Key Facts of the case
The case was on the legality of federal agencies with regard to the affirmative actions to be taken in order to accord contracts. The facts of the case revolve around the Central Federal Highway Division (CFLHD) a sub division of the state’s Department of Transportation (DOT) which awarded the Mountain Gravel & Construction Company in Colorado the construction project of a highway. As per the initial terms of the contract, Mountain Gravel was bound to get financial bonus in the event they hired a subcontractor who was certified as “socially and economically advantaged.” As opposed to the earlier terms, Mountain gravel hired a company that had been regarded as being “socially and economically disadvantaged.” This is what eventually led to the matters of the case in which the petitioner argued that the Secretary of Transportation had breached the contract terms.
Legal Issue(s) Presented before Court
Adarand constructors argued that the Department of Transportation in the United States used the basis of race in order to determine whether a contractor was “socially and economically disadvantaged.’” This assertion is however true, since the immigrants in the United States are regarded to as being “socially disadvantaged”. As such, this was an important note to take when making a ruling in this case.
Adarand expounds on the issue of discrimination whereby it is mentioned that the minorities and women are not awarded federal contracts as depicted in the US statistics of contracts. This can be supported by the following statistics which indicate that “in New York City, contracts awarded to minority-owned businesses in 1994 have dropped to 4.3% from 7.7% in 1990” (Justia 1). Lastly, Adarand’s argument is based on the Fifth Amendment right which states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. This amendment was violated on the basis of the clause that it is always guaranteed” (Justia 1).
Holding of the Court
Before being taken to the Supreme Court, this case had been ruled by the federal district court which had made a judgment in favor of DOT thus against Adarand. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the claims of Adarand were rejected.
Court’s Rationale or Reasoning for its Decision
The decision made by this court was not fair at all and the aftermath of what has come to being as a result of the court’s decision is clear evidence. Ten years down the line after this case, federal agencies in the United States have failed to comply with the Adarand’s ruling. It has been noted that the Department of Transportation among other departments put no consideration on racial differences when awarding federal contracts and programs.
Works Cited
Justia. Adarand constructors, inc. V. Pena, secretary of transportation, et al – 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Web.
OpenJurist.922 F. 2d 826 – United States v. Dekonty Corporation. n.d. Web.