Bring real-world complexity into your program with this richly layered civil contract case designed for trial advocacy, mock trial, and advanced civil litigation courses. This construction contract dispute between a long-standing government contractor and a county school board places participants squarely at the intersection of contract interpretation, public-entity defenses, and evidentiary nuance. 

Plaintiff Brett General Contracting, LLC alleges breach of contract and bad faith after the School Board of Nita County (SBNC) refused to pay delay-related change order costs. SBNC denies liability, asserts sovereign immunity, and countersues for breach of contract. 

The case centers on a “no damages for delay” clause, alleged exceptions to that clause, and disputed promises made by multiple project managers—some oral, some written, and some allegedly never approved. Participants must navigate burdens of proof, affirmative defenses, and a counterclaim, all before a civil jury. 

Key Learning Areas 

• Contract interpretation and “no damages for delay” clauses 
• Exceptions, waiver, reliance, and course of dealing 
• Bad faith claims requiring willful or intentional conduct 
• Sovereign immunity and limits on employee authority 
• Competing burdens of proof, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims 

Professors and students will benefit from: 

• Ready‑to‑teach materials that save preparation time, including teaching notes and a detailed factual timeline 
• Sample excerpts from deposition videos for reviewing questioning techniques 
• Various forms of evidence including social media, text, email, and voicemail recording 
• Built‑in pedagogical complexity, allowing instructors to focus on advocacy skills rather than inventing factual nuance 
• Clear assessment opportunities for openings, witness examinations, evidentiary objections, and closings 
• Practice applying burdens of proof, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims in a jury trial setting 
• Skill development in case theory, credibility assessment, and strategic use of documents and testimony 
• Exposure to bad faith standards, sovereign immunity, and public‑entity litigation issues 
• Real‑world legal ambiguity, requiring judgment calls rather than rote rule application