The case at hand stems from the appeal of the United States government to Armed Services Board of Contacts Appeals (ABSCA) to the decision of the latter finding for the appellant in the case, Dekonty Corporation (United States vs. DeKonty Corporation (922F 2d. 826, 1991). According to the case particulars, the Navy contracted the appellant company to build a child care facility in the Air Force base in Los Angeles (USCA, 1991).
In the course of the construction of the facility, Navy officials gave DeKonty that the contract might be ended (USCA, 1991). In a memorandum dated July 19th, an individual averred to Dekonty that the payment for the progress on the facility was on hold (USCA, 1991). In its defense, the Navy used two points that it determined to be factors in the anticipatory breach against the company (Client File). In the July 19th memo, it indicated that the officials from the Navy recommended that the contract be recommended for default (Client File).
Dekonty said that as per the note of the Resident Officer in Charge of Construction, only a handful of the recommendations are ultimately passed (Client File). The Navy ultimately terminated the Dekonty contract (Client File). In abandoning the site, Dekonty averred that the Navy had broken the contract by refusing to pay the company (USCA, 1991). Dekonty went to the Board on appeal that ruled the Navy committed an anticipatory breach even before the time that appellant had stopped work on the project (USCA, 1991).
In the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that the conduct of the Navy constituted a breach of that contract (USCA, 1991). In the Dingley vs. Oler case (853, 29 L. Ed 984 (1886), the mere suspicion that a party will not keep his part of the contract is not enough grounds fort the Navy to terminate the contract with DeKonty (Client File). That suspicion must be buttressed by the declared and verified refusal of the party to refuse the performance of the provisions of the said contract (Client File).
Uploaded Client File