admitted that SES did not change the rates it paid its employees on account of any communications from the City. SES timely completed its performance under the contract and received payment. SES, as an assignee of Morganti, filed this breach-of-contract suit against the City, alleging that in providing incorrect wage scales in the contract documents, the City breached the contract. In its sev enth amended petition, SES alleges that both the 00812 rate and the 00813 rate are incorrect wage scales. SES seeks the difference in the wages under the incorrectly certified wage scales provided in the documents and the correct prevailing wage scale plus prompt payment of interest. Both parties moved for summary jud e Corp., 287 S.W.3d 132, 139-40 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>) and Tidwell Props., Inc. v. Am. First Nat’l
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is  fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action  holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding that plaintiffs failure to secure financing for deal caused its damages rather than any action by defendant in breach of contract claim