Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v. United States, Defendant-Cross
2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24358, 271 F.3d 1060, 46 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 453 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court's determination of breach of contract damages, including the calculation of 'cover' for substitute services, is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such direct damages are not reducible by amounts the plaintiff may have 'passed through' to its customers.
Facts:
- In December 1985, NASA and Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. (Hughes) entered into a Launch Services Agreement (LSA) requiring NASA to use its "best efforts" to launch ten of Hughes' HS-393 satellites on space shuttles by September 30, 1994.
- NASA subsequently assigned Hughes' satellites specific slots on its shuttle manifests, which were periodically updated.
- In January 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded, leading NASA to suspend shuttle operations until September 1988.
- In August 1986, President Reagan announced that NASA would no longer launch commercial satellites on shuttles.
- After President Reagan's announcement, NASA compiled a new manifest that did not include any Hughes satellites and informed Hughes that it would almost certainly not launch any of its satellites.
- After 1986, Hughes launched three of its HS-393 satellites and several similar HS-601 satellites on expendable launch vehicles (ELVs), incurring higher costs than shuttle launches.
- Hughes developed the HS-601 satellites to replace the HS-393s because the HS-601s were better suited for ELV launches, and the HS-393 could have been designed to accommodate the HS-601's additional power.
- One HS-393 satellite, JCSAT-1, was launched on an ELV several months before President Reagan's announcement.
Procedural Posture:
- Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. (Hughes) sued the United States Government in the United States Court of Federal Claims for breach of contract and for taking its property without providing just compensation.
- The Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment to the Government on both claims based on the sovereign act defense (Hughes I).
- Hughes appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case (Hughes II).
- On remand, the Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment for Hughes for breach of contract (Hughes III).
- Before a trial on damages, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Government could not present evidence to reduce its damages by the amount Hughes had passed on to its customers (Hughes IV).
- The Court of Federal Claims held a trial on damages and awarded Hughes $102,680,625 (Hughes V).
- Both Hughes and the Government appealed the damages determination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Court of Federal Claims abuse its discretion in calculating breach of contract damages for Hughes, specifically concerning the number of satellites, the method of cost calculation for substitute services, the refusal to award reflight insurance, launch insurance, and prejudgment interest, and the refusal to reduce damages based on pass-through costs?
Opinions:
Majority - Rader, Circuit Judge
No, the Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion in calculating breach of contract damages for Hughes. This court reviews damages determinations for an abuse of discretion, which occurs if the decision is unreasonable, based on erroneous law, clearly erroneous factual findings, or lacks rational evidentiary basis. The general rule for breach of contract damages is to place the injured party in the position they would have been, with damages being foreseeable and direct. The LSA itself limited damages to "direct damages only." The trial court properly awarded "cover" damages for Hughes' increased costs of obtaining substitute launch services. The finding that HS-601 launches on ELVs were commercially reasonable substitutes for HS-393 shuttle launches was not clearly erroneous, given that Hughes developed HS-601s as replacements due to the breach. The court's method of comparing HS-393 ELV costs to projected shuttle costs provided reasonable certainty and accounted for differences in satellite models. The damages awarded were direct, not consequential, as distinguished by principles analogous to UCC § 2-712. The Court of Federal Claims correctly found that NASA's "best efforts" would have resulted in only five HS-393 launches, not ten, based on a July 1986 manifest and expert reports, noting that technical obstacles, not budget choices, limited NASA's launch rates post-Challenger. The symmetrical averaging of shuttle and ELV launch costs for the remaining satellites was a reasonable exercise of discretion, as was using the end of the contract period (September 1994) for escalation factors. Hughes was not entitled to prejudgment interest because the claim was for breach of contract, not a Fifth Amendment taking, as the Government acted in its proprietary, not sovereign, capacity when contracting, and Hughes had no property right to "shuttle space." Reflight insurance costs were properly rejected as speculative due to Hughes' failure to show comparability between the LSA's reflight guarantee and the cash refund ELV insurance. Increased launch insurance costs were also not recoverable as direct damages, as Hughes' decision to purchase it was an independent business decision and not contractually required. Finally, the Court of Federal Claims correctly disallowed the Government's "pass-through" defense to reduce damages, citing Supreme Court precedent that such reductions are too remote, create evidentiary difficulties, and would destroy symmetry in damages calculations.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of damages in government service contract breaches, affirming that "cover" for substitute performance need only be commercially reasonable, not identical. It reinforces the significant barrier against reducing damages based on arguments that the injured party 'passed through' increased costs to customers, citing concerns about remoteness and evidentiary complexity. Furthermore, the decision solidifies the distinction between breach of contract claims and Fifth Amendment takings claims in the context of government contracts, emphasizing that the government typically acts in a proprietary capacity when entering such agreements, limiting remedies to contractual terms rather than constitutional protections.
