BLB Aviation South Carolina v. Jet Linx Aviation, LLC, et al., No. 12-3461 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseBLB, an aviation company, brought contract claims against Jet Linx and others, and Jet Linx counterclaimed. The court concluded that Jet Linx's tender of a check and BLB's act of depositing the check did not amount to an accord and satisfaction; the district court did not clearly err by finding that BLB did not agree to the terms of the August 2008 letter at issue and, as a result, the district court did not err by rejecting Jet Linx's defense of accord and satisfaction; the court affirmed the district court's judgment for BLB with respect to its claim for unpaid lease payments under the dry lease agreement (DLA) and the award of $141,400 to BLB; the court affirmed the district court's judgment for BLB on its claim that Jet Linx breached the management services agreement (MSA) by "marking up" the cost of maintenance; the court reversed and remanded the district court's judgment with regard to Jet Linx's failure to maintain the maintenance records and part tags where it was error to choose diminution in values as the appropriate measure of BLB's damages; and the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Jet Linx on its counterclaim for breach of the MSA and the award of damages to Jet Linx.
Court Description: Civil case - Contracts. District court did not err in rejecting defendant's defense of accord and satisfaction as the evidence was more than sufficient for the district court to conclude that plaintiff did not agree to the terms of defendant's letter; district court did not err in finding for plaintiff with respect to its claims for unpaid lease payments; finding that defendant breached the parties' agreement by "marking up" maintenance costs is affirmed; with respect to plaintiff's claim that the district court erred in concluding it had not proved its damages arising from defendant's failure to document maintenance, this issue must be remanded for further proceedings on the proper measure of damages; district court did not clearly err in concluding plaintiff had failed to present insufficient evidence connecting engine damage on one of the planes to defendant's crew's failure to conduct a pre-flight inspection.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.