Spearin performed the preliminary required task of relocating a sewer (without knowledge of the dam’s presence) and the job was approved and accepted by the Government. Since the dam inside the sewer was not shown in any of the Government’s plans and specifications, Spearin could not be held responsible for the consequent damages. The subsequent flooding of the excavated site occurred due to the Government’s negligence of providing this information to Spearin. Hence, the Court determined that Spearin was excused from continuing performance because the Government breached its implied warranty to Spearin that the plans and specifications were adequate; Also by annulling the contract, the Government was liable for all damages resulting from the
Spearin performed the preliminary required task of relocating a sewer (without knowledge of the dam’s presence) and the job was approved and accepted by the Government. Since the dam inside the sewer was not shown in any of the Government’s plans and specifications, Spearin could not be held responsible for the consequent damages. The subsequent flooding of the excavated site occurred due to the Government’s negligence of providing this information to Spearin. Hence, the Court determined that Spearin was excused from continuing performance because the Government breached its implied warranty to Spearin that the plans and specifications were adequate; Also by annulling the contract, the Government was liable for all damages resulting from the