With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 42, 34 S.Ct. 736. The resale contract cost the government more money and it sued Ax-man for the difference. Id. The Supreme Court held that the original contract “specifically made the place of dumping the spoil an essential and particular term of the contract.” Id. at 43, 34 S.Ct. 736. “Dredging the channel would not be enough to show performance of his contract, unless [Axman] complied with the other material requirement as to the deposit of the spoil.” Id. “[W]e think the change in overnment could not charge contractor excess cost of re-let contract where the re-let contract was for a more expensive communication system based on different technology than that provided under the original contract); Rosenberg v. United States, 76 Ct.Cl. 662, 677-79, 1933 WL 1837 (1933) (<HOLDING>); George Leary Constr. Co. v. United States, 63

A: recognizing a defense immunizing federal contractors from liability where the contractor has conformed its behavior to precise government specifications and if necessary has warned the government of risks posed by those specifications
B: holding original contractor not liable for additional cost of relet contract where significant changes were made to the construction specifications
C: holding that a contractor who had substantially complied with the building specifications substantially performed
D: holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where the governments specifications were impossible to meet government changed the specifications but did not change the price to be paid original contractor refused to perform and new contractor was paid more to meet new specifications
D.