could not be read to require the payment of money for their breach). Money damages are the default remedy for breach of contract. San Juan City College v. United States, 391 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2004). The law presumes that damages will be available for breach of a contract by the Government. Id.; see also Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329, 1334 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (stating that “in the area of government contracts ... there is a presumption in the civil context that a damages remedy will be available upon the breach of an agreement”); Taylor v. United States, 73 Fed.Cl. 532, 545 (2006) (noting that the “contract itself does not need to be money-mandating because money damages are the default remedy for a breach of contract.”). But see, e.g., Phillips, 77 Fed.Cl. at 518-19 (<HOLDING>). Phillips involved a settlement agreement that
holding that section 4625bc does not create a private right of action for money damages holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages holding that absent an independent tort a plaintiff alleging a breach of contract may only seek to recover the damages flowing from the breach holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract holding that breach of a duty to seek reassignment for plaintiff did not create a substantive right to money damages