wrongfully terminated contract because Government’s breach not material); Allan Const. Co. v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 193, 646 F.2d 487 (1981) (not allowing contractor to win quantum meruit on losing contract because Government did not materially breach, thereby requiring contractor to continue performance under contract); Burroughs Corp. v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 63, 634 F.2d 516 (1980) (not excusing Government’s material breach because contractor’s prior breach found not material); Litchfield Mfg. Corp. v. United States, 167 Ct.Cl. 604, 338 F.2d 94 (1964) (excusing contractor from performing contract where Government materially breached by failing to deliver equipment essential to contractor’s performance); Pa. Exch. Bank v. United States, 145 Ct.Cl. 216, 170 F.Supp. 629 (1959) (<HOLDING>). The Federal Circuit followed this rationale
holding that mere delay in payment for a while would not be a material breach holding that the government was liable for partial breach of contract 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 the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract holding contractor liable for total or material breach thus excusing government from payment of contract price