Opinion ID: 691321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether Linan-Faye Misunderstood the Specifications

Text: 69 Linan-Faye argues that the district court improperly concluded that it misunderstood the contract specifications because the court indicated in a footnote that [a]t the very least, plaintiff misinterpreted the architect's specifications for the project. Linan-Faye Construction Co., 847 F.Supp. at 1203 n. 13. According to Linan-Faye, it was HACC who misinterpreted the contract specifications. The dispute over proper interpretation of the contract specifications, argues Linan-Faye, prevented the court from resolving this issue at the summary judgment stage. 70 Linan-Faye's argument misinterprets the district court's reasoning. The relevant statement the court made in this footnote is merely that there was discord between the parties over interpreting their agreement. The district court mentioned the discord to support its conclusion concerning the constructive termination for convenience doctrine. Whether Linan-Faye actually misunderstood the specifications, or whether it was HACC's misunderstanding, is irrelevant where there is a termination for convenience. As the district court held, the constructive termination for convenience doctrine operates to allow the government to extricate itself from contractual relationships without arguing as to which party was in default. Id. at 1203. Accordingly, the issue of who misunderstood the contract specifications is not material, and played no part in the order granting summary judgment. 71