AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• AUI, Inc. (AUI) entered into a contract with the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) for a construction project. After the contractual completion date had passed, NMDOT issued change orders requiring AUI to perform additional work. AUI subsequently filed a breach of contract claim against NMDOT, asserting that NMDOT had waived its right to liquidated damages for delays because it issued these change orders for additional work after the contractual completion date.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Judgment entered in favor of NMDOT on AUI’s breach of contract claim.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (AUI, Inc.): Argued that NMDOT waived its entitlement to liquidated damages by issuing change orders for additional work after the contractual completion date had passed and that the contract did not allow for liquidated damages to be apportioned for delays.
• Defendant-Appellee (NMDOT): Contended that it did not waive its right to liquidated damages and that the contract provisions allowed for the apportionment of liquidated damages for delays.

Legal Issues

• Whether NMDOT waived its entitlement to liquidated damages by issuing change orders for additional work after the contractual completion date.
• Whether the contract allowed for the apportionment of liquidated damages for delays.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of NMDOT.

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Ives, Medina, and Henderson, concluded that AUI’s arguments were inadequately briefed and did not warrant review on the merits. Specifically, the Court found that AUI’s argument regarding NMDOT’s waiver of liquidated damages was based on a mischaracterization of the record, as the district court had found that NMDOT did not assess liquidated damages in connection with the change orders that added new work (para 2). Furthermore, the Court declined to review AUI’s argument about the apportionment of liquidated damages due to AUI’s failure to provide a meaningful analysis of the contract text pertaining to time extensions (para 4). The decision to affirm was based on the principle that the Court would not develop arguments on behalf of parties and that AUI’s submissions lacked sufficient development and analysis to merit review (paras 1-4).