Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): place of dumping the spoil was very material, and could not be made consistently with the terms of the agreement under which Axman undertook to perform the work or be liable....” Id. at 43-44, 34 S.Ct. 736. “[T]he work done under the second contract was not the work which the first contractor had agreed to perform.” Id. at 45, 34 S.Ct. 736. Axman and its progeny have a common thread. The cases in which the courts have barred a damage claim under Axman involved substantial and material changes in the physical nature of the performance, i.e.; the work to be performed or the goods to be delivered, from the original contract to the re-let contract. Consol. Airborne Sys., Inc. v. United States, 172 Ct.Cl. 588, 348 F.2d 941, 947 (1965). See also Cal. Bridge, 245 U.S. at 344-45, 38 S.Ct. 91 (<HOLDING>); Schwartz, 65 F.Supp. at 393 (holding that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding original contractor not liable for additional cost of relet contract where significant changes were made to the construction specifications (B) holding that contractor was not precluded from recovering damages against owner for defective specifications stated in contract notwithstanding lumpsum and prebid investigation provisions in contract because owner made positive assurances concerning reliability of said specifications (C) holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate (D) holding that a construction contractor is entitled to recover profits upon breach of a partially performed contract but not the same amount as if the contract were completed because that amount must be reduced by the cost of completion (E) holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where the governments specifications were impossible to meet government changed the specifications but did not change the price to be paid original contractor refused to perform and new contractor was paid more to meet new specifications
Output (English): holding that contractor was not precluded from recovering damages against owner for defective specifications stated in contract notwithstanding lumpsum and prebid investigation provisions in contract because owner made positive assurances concerning reliability of said specifications