Transpace Carriers, Inc. v. United States
1992 WL 360174, 27 Fed. Cl. 269, 1992 U.S. Claims LEXIS 164 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's duty to negotiate in good faith under a preliminary agreement may extend beyond the agreement's formal expiration date if the parties' subsequent conduct, communications, and course of dealing indicate an intent to remain bound by its terms.
Facts:
- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operated the Delta Launch Vehicle program and sought to transition it to the private sector.
- Trans-pace Carriers, Inc. (TCI) was incorporated for the specific purpose of commercially operating the Delta program and was the only firm to respond to NASA's solicitation.
- On May 16, 1984, TCI and NASA executed a Preliminary Agreement granting TCI exclusive rights to market Delta launch services and requiring it to satisfy certain conditions before a final Commercialization Agreement would be signed.
- For two years, the parties negotiated and extended the Preliminary Agreement's expiration date six times, with the final signed extension expiring on May 31, 1986.
- After May 31, 1986, the parties continued to meet and exchange letters regarding the program's transition.
- A definitive Commercialization Agreement was never signed between TCI and NASA.
- On October 10, 1986, NASA informed TCI that it had adopted plans to enter into commercial agreements with other manufacturers, including McDonnell Douglas, for the private operation of the Delta vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- TCI initially filed a complaint in the U.S. Claims Court.
- The court dismissed TCI's first complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the contract's disputes clause.
- TCI submitted its claim to NASA, which subsequently denied it.
- TCI re-filed its complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
- Defendant United States (NASA) filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a party's duty to negotiate in good faith under a preliminary agreement extend beyond the agreement's formal expiration date based on the parties' subsequent conduct and communications?
Opinions:
Majority - Margolis, Judge
Yes. A party's duty to negotiate in good faith under a preliminary agreement can extend beyond its expiration date if the parties' post-expiration conduct and communications demonstrate an intent to remain bound by its terms. The court found that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the parties implicitly modified the agreement to extend beyond its May 31, 1986 expiration date. This finding was based on NASA's post-expiration letter stating that the 'working arrangement will continue in the absence of any written agreement,' the parties' continued negotiations after the expiration, and their prior course of conduct, which included retroactively executing five of the six extensions after the agreement had already lapsed. These facts, viewed in the light most favorable to TCI, are sufficient to raise the issue of whether NASA breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. However, the court granted summary judgment for NASA on TCI's claim for lost profits, as the agreement's plain language explicitly limited liability to 'direct damages only' and excluded lost profits. The court also granted summary judgment for NASA on TCI's Fifth Amendment takings claim, reasoning that when the government acts in a proprietary (business) capacity and a dispute is governed by a contract, the proper remedy is a breach of contract claim, not a takings claim.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the significant legal weight of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, particularly in the context of 'agreements to agree.' The court's decision emphasizes that a contract's written terms, such as an expiration date, are not always dispositive and can be implicitly modified by the parties' course of conduct. This creates a precedent where a party's actions after a contract formally expires can prevent them from unilaterally terminating negotiations without potential liability. The ruling serves as a caution that continued engagement can extend contractual obligations, requiring parties to be explicit and definitive if they wish to terminate a relationship governed by an expired agreement.
Unlock the full brief for Transpace Carriers, Inc. v. United States