Federal District Court Opinions

(S.D.Fla. 2004) 315 F. Supp.2d 1319 AIR CALEDONIE
INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. AAR PARTS
TRADING, INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. Case No.
02-21193-CIV-ALTONAGA/Bandstra. United States District
Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. April 2, 2004 West
Page 1320

Lawrence Dean Goodman, Diane Noller Wells, Catherine Fran
Hoffman, Robert J. Kuntz, Devine, Goodman, Pallot & Wells,
Miami, FL, David C. Birdoff, Fulbright & Jaworski, New York
City, for Plaintiff. West Page 1321

Gerald Barry Wald, Antonio Arzola, Murai, Wald, Biondo &
Moreno, Miami, FL, Paul E. Dengel, Schiff Hardin LLP,
Chicago, IL, for defendant.



Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 52 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the following findings of facts and
conclusions of law are made. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
Air Caledonie International (“ACI”), sued
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, AAR Parts Trading, Inc.
(“AAR”), in connection with an agreement covering the lease
of an aircraft engine by ACI (hereinafter “Engine”). On
August 12, 2003, the Court found that ACI breached the
lease agreement and entered partial summary judgment in
favor of AAR as to ACI’s liability on AAR’s Amended

In the August 12, 2003 Order, the Court found that although
ACI was not liable for pre-existing conditions that
rendered the Engine unserviceable, it was required to make
all repairs necessary to render the Engine serviceable at
redelivery, regardless of the cause of unserviceability.
ACI had the right, however, to be reimbursed for the
expense of repairing pre-existing conditions that made the
Engine unserviceable, i.e., ACI had the right to seek
recovery of expenses incurred by ACI to repair
unserviceable conditions that had existed at the inception
of the Lease, or the right to have AAR’s contractual breach
damages reduced by the amount of those expenses. It has
already been determined that ACI defaulted on its obligation
to redeliver a serviceable Engine at termination of the
Page 2 lease period, but there were issues of fact
regarding whether the unserviceable conditions identified
by the facility that inspected the Engine at the end of the
lease pre-existed the lease, and whether AAR or ACI had
suffered any damages.

At the trial, the Court received evidence, and considered
the applicable law and arguments on the issue of the amount
of damages, if any, to which AAR is entitled as a result of
ACI’s breach, as well as the damages, if any, to which ACI
is entitled based on AAR’s retention of $3,365,900 of ACI’s
money since September 14, 2001, and $2,679,900 since
December, 2002. The Court finds that AAR is liable to ACI
in the amount of $2,607,722 for the reasons set forth in
the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.