Opinion ID: 207966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contract Interpretation and Performance

Text: The record establishes and the trial court found as a fact that Reclamation failed to provide the water that was promised under the 1983 contracts for the years 1994, 1995, and 1999-2004, the years at issue in this appeal. Absent an affirmative defense, that failure by the Government would constitute a breach of the contracts and render the Government liable for damages for the breach. The Government essentially raises three affirmative defenses to this breach of contract suit. First, the contracts were entered into in light of federal reclamation law and state permits, and any changes in law, even changes such as the CVPIA made years after the contracts were entered into, are incorporated as a matter of fundamental law into the contracts. This will be referred to as the `inherency' defense. Second, specific provisions of the contracts, namely Articles 9(a) and 12(d), provide the Government with a valid defense. This is the `contract provision' defense. And third, in addition to these other defenses, the sovereign acts doctrine stands as a defense to the Districts' contract claims; this we call the `sovereign acts' defense. We address each of these defenses in turn.