INSTRUCTION: 11/2 pages- 2 pages APA format Use this case -Review Garavalia vs. Heat Controller, Inc case .( http://www.leagle.com/decision/19911797570NE2d1227_11670/GARAVALIA%20v.%20HEAT %20CONTROLLER,%20INC. ) found on this link to come up with a paper 11/2 pages- 2 pages QUESTION: Mention : Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?] Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns] . please Include citations and reference. and answer procedure and issue in different paragraphs EXAMPLE : (THE case below is just an example to help you format the paper) PARTIES In the case the plaintiff was the U.S. Navy and the defendants were the two contractor's General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas. FACTS After the petitioners fell behind the schedule in developing stealth aircraft (A-12) for the Navy, contracting officer terminated their $4.8 billion fixed-price contract for the default and ordered the petitioners to repay approximately $1.35 billion in the progress payments for work that the Government never accepted. Petitioners filed the suit in Court of Federal Claims, challenging termination decision under Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 609(a)(1). The Court of Federal Claims held that, since the invocation of the state-secrets privilege obscured the too many of facts relevant to the superior-knowledge defense, the issue of the defense was no justifiable, even though the petitioners had brought forward enough unprivileged evidence for the prima facie showing. Accordingly, at the issue was what remedy was proper when, to protect the state secrets, court dismissed the Government contractor's prima facie valid affirmative defense to Government's allegations of the contractual breach. The Court concluded that it must exercise common-law authority in the situation to fashion the contractual remedies in the Government-contracting disputes and held that proper remedy was to leave parties where they were on the day that they filed suit. PROCEDURE In June 1991, General Dynamics \"sought relief in the Court of Federal Claims under the Contract Disputes Act requesting that the court: (1) grant the contractors' equitable adjustment claims, (2) convert the government's termination for default into a termination for convenience, (3) deny the government's demand for return of progress payments, (4) award GD costs and a reasonable profit under the contract, (5) award GD settlement expenses, and (6) award damages for breach of contract.\"(Bloomberg Law) \"After several years of litigation, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the government's default termination was invalid .It vacated the government's termination for default and converted it into a termination for convenience. The court denied the government's claim for return of $1.35 billion in unliquidated progress payments, and entered judgment of approximately $1.2 billion in favor of\" (Bloomberg Law) GD. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit reversed that holding and \"remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether the default termination was justified.\" (Bloomberg Law). Following a six-week trial on remand, the Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the government. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court affirmed the trial court's determination, but said \"that the trial court misapplied the controlling standard in determining whether the default termination was justified\" (Bloomberg Law). Therefore, the case was again vacated and remanded to the Court of Federal Claims The CFC, after analyzing the Federal Circuit Court's remand, ruled again in favor of the government. GD appealed again to the US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, which held the lower court's decision. Finally, GD appealed in the US Supreme Court in the year 2010. ISSUE The \"state secrets\" doctrine prevents disclosure of important state secrets in litigation. can the government sue a federal contractor for breach of contract then use the secrets doctrine to prevent the contractor from raising a defense that would require the contractor to disclose secret information? APPLICABLE LAW \"State secrets privilege or national-security privilege is a privilege that the government may invoke against the discovery of a material which if divulged, could compromise national security. This is an evidentiary rule created by legal precedent in U.S. By exercising this privilege, the court is asked to exclude evidence from a case based on an affidavit submitted by the government stating that the court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security. The state secrets privilege was formally recognized in the leading case United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953).\" (US Legal Inc.) In layman's terms, \"the state secrets privilege, when properly invoked, permits the government to block the release of any information in a lawsuit that, if disclosed, would cause harm to national security.\" (ACLU.org) HOLDING The court dismissed the government contractor's prima facie valid affirmative defense to the Government's allegations of contractual breach. (JUSTIA, 2017). The court held, neither the government nor the contractors could purse the long running dispute. It was a unanimous decision and in the majority opinion by the Antonin Scalia, he said, \"suit on the contract, or for performance rendered or funds paid under the contract, will not lie, and the parties will be left where they are.\" \"Both parties, the government no less than petitionersmust have assumed the risk that state secrets would prevent the adjudication of claims of inadequate performance.\" (Oyez, 2017) The court held this way because the state secrets privilege obscured many of the facts related to the superior knowledge defense, and was not justiciable. Therefore, the court exercised its common law authority to solve the government contracting disputes. Neither party was satisfied with the resolution, because General Dynamics wanted to turn the termination in to convenience and reinstate a 12 billion award from the court. Unfortunately, that was not an option under the A-12 agreement. The other reason was the government wanted a return of 1.35 billion it paid petitioners for work never accepted because the government claimed petitioners were in default, but this was not justiciable. REASONING The Supreme Court decided to reverse and remand the lower court's order with a unanimous decision made by the court. In particular, Justice Antonin Scalia led and made the decision while unanimously he was supported by his peers. It was decided that neither the government nor the defendant was able to pursue a long-term dispute. The reason was because the possibility that state secrets might be revealed. "Suit on the contract, or for performance rendered or funds paid under the contract, will not lie, and the parties will be left where they are," Scalia wrote. "Both partiesthe government no less than petitionersmust have assumed the risk that state secrets would prevent the adjudication of claims of inadequate performance."(Oyez.org) The overall reasoning was that in general, neither party could expect things to go fast nor smooth since the secrets of government was not going to be revealed and that was obviously going to prevent the contractors from doing their job. The defense contractors were not able to honor the contract not because they were lacking the push to get things done, but they were lacking the information needed in order to complete the job. CONCLUSION In conclusion, General Dynamics is the world's fifth-largest defense contractor based on its 2012 revenues. Their product includes Gulfstream business jets, submarines, wheeled combat vehicles and communications systems. They entered in contract with the US government in 1988. The U.S. Navy ordered a new stealth aircraft, the A-12 Avenger, to be built by contractors General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas. In 1991 the Navy gave up and cancelled the contract, saying too little progress had been made, and asked the contractors to return payments already made. The contractors refused, saying the government had kept too much information secret under the "state secrets privilege" for there to be adequate progress. On 1 June 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the U.S. Navy was justified in canceling the contract. The ruling also required the two contractors to repay the U.S. government more than US$1.35 billion, plus interest charges of US$1.45 billion. Boeing, which had merged with McDonnell Douglas, and General Dynamics vowed to appeal the ruling. On appeal, the Federal Circuit Court affirmed the trial court's determination, but said \"that the trial court misapplied the controlling standard in determining whether the default termination was justified\" (Bloomberg Law). Therefore, the case was again vacated and remanded to the Court of Federal Claims The CFC, after analyzing the Federal Circuit Court's remand, ruled again in favor of the government. GD appealed again to the US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, which held the lower court's decision. Finally, GD appealed in the US Supreme Court in the year 2010. REFERENCES 1 RUNNING HEAD: GARAVALIA VS. HEAT CONTROLLER, INC CASE TITLE NAME OF STUDENT INSTITTUTION AFFILIATION 2 GARAVALIA VS. HEAT CONTROLLER, INC CASE PROCEDURE Arvo Lake, a retired 71-year-old man, bought an air conditioner in May. The unit was installed and operated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Unbeknownst to Lake, the unit contained a hole in the refrigeration system that allowed Freon, the coolant, to escape from the unit. By August, the unit had ceased cooling, and Lake's residence reached a temperature of at least 96 degrees Fahrenheit. The heat caused Lake to suffer from hyperthermia, which caused circulatory failure and then death. The executor of Lake's Estate sued the manufacturer of the air conditioner for damages resulting from breach of warranty. ISSUE The manufacturer of air conditioner has breached the express warranty that the air conditioning unit will work reasonably according to the specifications to cool for which it is meant. It is breach of express of express as well as implied warranty both. For a manufacturer to be liable for consequential damage must be foreseeable and although Lake's death was not a foreseeable consequence of air conditioner failure to operate properly. But a product will be considered to be unreasonably dangerous only if the product is dangerous to such an extent which would be contemplated by the ordinary person, with the ordinary knowledge. An ordinary consumer would not contemplate being killed by the air conditioner which is defective in that it leaked itself dry and free on and failed to cool. It has been specifically held that a manufacturer has a duty to care to design and manufacture a product that will be reasonably safe for its intended and any reasonably foreseeable uses. (Comstubble vs 3 GARAVALIA VS. HEAT CONTROLLER, INC CASE Ford Motor Company). Therefore, the death of Arvo Lake, purchaser of air conditioner, was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defect in the air conditioning unit. The manufacture has breached the express warranty that the air-conditioner will perform properly and will generate cooling to the room of user and also implied warranty has breached that product will perform its manufacturing specification and purpose. Let us take an example of hospital. The hospital does not provide either express or implied warranty to save life of patient. If during treatment patient expires there will be no breach of warranty but on the other hand transport service provider like railway, there is warranty that passenger will reach to its destination safely and if not so there will be breach of warranty. REFERENCES GARAVALIA v. HEAT CONTROLLER, I. (2017). 570 N.E.2d 1227 (1991) | GARAVALIA v. HEAT... | Leagle.com. Leagle. Retrieved 21 July 2017, from http://www.leagle.com/decision/19911797570NE2d1227_11670/GARAVALIA%20v. %20HEAT%20CONTROLLER,%20INC Shapo, M. (2017). Shapo on the Law of Products Liability. Google Books. Retrieved 21 July 2017, from https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=UTOmOvepHPEC&pg=SA9PA8&lpg=SA9PA8&dq=Comstubble+vs+Ford+Motor+Company&source=bl&ots=7UwpqRwNEh&sig =htVX_vPCNOclwnRjFesMUHo_zE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Comstubble%20vs%20Ford %20Motor%20Company&f=false 4 GARAVALIA VS. HEAT CONTROLLER, INC CASE GARAVALIA v. HEAT CONTROLLER, I. (2017). 570 N.E.2d 1227 (1991) | GARAVALIA v. HEAT... | Leagle.com. Leagle. Retrieved 21 July 2017, from http://www.leagle.com/decision/19911797570NE2d1227_11670/GARAVALIA%20v. %20HEAT%20CONTROLLER,%20INC