rather than substantial changes to the nature of the work performed, our precedent and that of our sister circuits hold that the Axman defense is unavailable. In Consolidated Airborne, this court’s predecessor was presented with the question of whether changing only the quantity of goods purchased from the original contract to the resale contract made the contract so materially different that the original contractor could not be liable for the difference in the per unit costs of the goods. Consol. Airborne, 348 F.2d at 947-48. The Court of Claims held that changing the quantity of goods purchased did not suffice to establish a complete bar under Axman. Id. at 948. The Eighth Circuit held to similar effect in American Surety Co. v. United States, 317 F.2d 652, 656-57 (8th Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>). In Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United
holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure holding that changes in the quantity of units and the timing of delivery did not bar the government from using the resale contract as the measure of damages holding that the proper measure of damages to repair defects for a building contract that has not been substantially performed is the contractually agreed upon measure of damages