As the evaluation training shows, normal wear is expected when renting items to the government. However, the evaluation training confirms that the government cannot absolve itself of responsibility for its own negligence in the maintenance of objects or equipment, particularly if it does not exercise due diligence. The Commission rejected the Navy`s argument that, since the contract was specifically reserved for negligence, the principles of the common law lease did not apply. Instead, the Board of Directors approved ATSCC`s common law theory, as the contract and the lease of the common law had the same liability criteria – negligence. Thus, the principles of the common law were based on the underlying contract and applied to the board`s assessment. For those who do not know the principles of the common law lease, a brief explanation is warranted. According to common law, when one party, the Bailee, another party, the Bailor, pays to use the bailor`s goods, the lawsuit is in the mutual interest of the parties (i.e. the Bailor receives money and the bailee receives full use of the goods). As the board wrote: Questions about this post? Or do you need help with a state contract case? Email us or call us at 785-200-8919. As a backdrop ATSCC leased three of its boats to the Navy for use in maritime training. In accordance with contract maintenance requirements, ATSCC was responsible for the quarterly preventive maintenance and inspection of the three vessels and the repair of all problems identified. The contractor should “bear the costs of repair, unless it can be proven that such repairs were caused by negligence or intentional damage by the government.” The law of the derailment imposes on the lease the obligation to protect the property by the exercise of ordinary care and to return the property in much the same condition, with the exception of ordinary wear.

When the government receives the property in good condition and returns it to a damaged condition, it is assumed that “the cause of the property damage was non-compliance with the usual diligence or negligence. Within the Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation, ASBCA No. 61047 (2017), ASBCA responded to a claim for compensation due to government negligence in the maintenance of the vessels leased by the contractor. YOUR LETTERS STATES THAT FAA A ESSENTIAL, IN TRAINING ITS PERSONNEL TO CARRY OUT THEIR VITAL FUNCTIONS OF INSPECTING COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS AND EXAMINING THEIR PILOTS AND CREWS FOR PROFICIENCY, TO PROCURE THE USE OF PRIVATELY OWNED AIRCRAFT OF VARIOUS TYPES, ESPECIALLY HEAVY AIRCRAFT USED IN COMMERCIAL AIRLINE OPERATIONS. THEY ARE LISTENING THAT THE USE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF AIRCRAFT IN ADDITION TO THOSE OF THE FAA DEEMS ECONOMICAL TO PURCHASE, IS NECESSARY TO ACTIVATE YOUR INSPECTORS TO BECOME IN OR FAMILIAR WITH THE TYPES OF AIRCRAFT TO THOSE OF SPECIALIZED INSPECTION DUTIES RELATES.