For those unfamiliated with the principles of the common law bailout, a brief explanation is warranted. According to the common law bailment, when one party, the Bailee, another party, the Bailor, pays to use the Bailors` property, the bailout is for the mutual benefit of the parties (i.e. the lessor receives money and the lessor receives full use of the property). As the Board of Directors wrote: Questions about this contribution? Or do you need help with a government legal problem? Email us or call us at 785-200-8919. Several problems arose during the operation of these boats by the navy, including burial of the boat, a boat accident, the use of fake oil, the filling of freshwater tanks with diesel, the operation of overheated engines, the failure to fill out checklists before and after operation, coolant and oil leaks, and cracked debris in an engine, each problem that must be repaired. In Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation, ASBCA No. 61047 (2017), ASBCA received a claim for damages from a contractor as a result of the government`s negligence in maintaining the contractor`s leased boats. As the evaluation training showed, normal wear and tear is expected when leasing objects to the government. However, the assessment body confirms that the government cannot discharge responsibility for its own negligence in the maintenance of leased property or equipment, particularly if it does not exercise the usual diligence.
The Surety Act imposes on the surety the obligation to protect the property by the exercise of usual diligence and to return the property essentially in the same condition, subject to the usual wear and tear. If the government maintains the property in good condition and returns it in a damaged condition, the presumption “is that the cause of the damage to the property was the failure of the [G]overments to apply the usual diligence or its negligence. In applying this standard, the Board contradicted the Navy`s argument that it usually operated on ATSCC boats and found that a boat`s “blown” engine was not “ordinary wear and tear.” Council found that the Navy`s acceptance of the vessels revealed that they were in good condition at reception. The chamber rejected the Navy`s argument that the vessels were not under their exclusive control and found that the damage had occurred during the operation and training of the Navy, in which ATSCC did not participate. Thus, the return of the boats damaged by the navy found that the navy was responsible for at least part of the damage.. . . .