as are inadvertent and unintentional, are not due to bad faith, do not impair the structure as a whole, and are remediable without doing material damage to other parts of the building in tearing down and reconstructing. Atkinson, 270 S.W. at 851. The rule of substantial performance is an equitable doctrine adopted to allow a contractor who has substantially completed a construction c tion precedent to a contractor’s right to bring a lawsuit on the contract. Id. Relying on Uhlir v. Golden Triangle Development Corporation, Solar argues that by agreeing substantial performance occurred, TA acknowledged that Solar was in “full compliance” with the contract and any express conditions to final payment did not have to be met. 763 S.W.2d 512, 515 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1988, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Solar argues that TA may not expressly
holding that any constitutionally protected property interest employee had as a result of his employment contract has been satisfied by payment of full compensation  including salary and benefits  due under the contract holding that a party cannot claim damages for breach of contract unless he has shown his full compliance with the contract and is not acting in bad faith holding that a finding that a contract has been substantially completed is the legal equivalent of full compliance less any offsets for remediable defects holding that any constitutionally protected property interest an employee has as a result of his employment contract is satisfied by payment of the full compensation due under the contract holding that if plaintiff substantially performed its contractual obligations then it would be entitled to the payment due under the contract less the cost of any correction of defects in its performance even if it breached the contract