The __________ states that only what is written in the contract is applicable and that all previous verbal or written statements are not.

• A. "Doctrine of Contra Proferentem"
• B. "Usage of Trade Rule"
• C. "Plain Meaning Rule"
• D. "Parol Evidence Rule"

Scenario 6.0: 1 - "When is a Commitment Not a Commitment?"
The buyer entered into a contract to lease 20,240 square feet of office space from Office Leasing Company (OLC). This space consisted of 8,545 square feet in Suite 1100 and 11,695 square feet in Suite 1106. The lease was for five years and provided the buyer with a renewal option as follows:
The buyer shall have the right to one renewal option for a five-year term. The renewal option shall become effective provided notice is given in writing to the lessor of the buyer's intent to exercise such option at least
270 days before the end of the original lease term; all other terms and conditions of this lease shall remain the same during any renewal term. Said notice shall be computed commencing with the day after the date of mailing.
The buyer also entered into Supplemental Lease Agreement Number 1 (SLA 1) , which stated it was being issued to reflect an expansion of 6,431 square feet in Suite 300. SLA 1 amended the original lease to encompass the additional space, changing the space from 20,240 square feet to approximately 26,671 square feet, and increased the annual rent to $1,098,790.70. SLA 1 also amended the renewal option text to reflect the new annual rent of $1,156,935.80.
The lease, as amended by SLA 1, also contained a buyer clause regarding authority to make changes to the lease. As stated in the clause, the buyer's authorized agent may, by written order, make changes within the general scope of this lease to the amount of space, provided the lessor consents to the change.
The first lease was set to end on December 31, 2021. On February 28, 2020, the buyer's contract specialist sent an email to OLC stating the buyer "hereby exercises its renewal option ... for a period of five years." The buyer's contract specialist noted that the email was "official notification that the buyer exercises its renewal option right as provided under this lease," and indicated that "this action will be followed up with a supplemental lease agreement in the near future." The email also stated that "per SLA 1, [the buyer] would not like to renew the expansion space portion of the lease." At that time, the buyer was planning to vacate a good portion of its leased inventory and requested that OLC allow the buyer to terminate the Suite 300 portion of the lease effective March 1, 2021.
On March 1, 2020, OLC agreed to accept the long renewal of Suites 1100 and 1106 per the renewal option if the buyer agreed to renew the third-floor space for two weeks, from January 1, 2021, to January 15, 2021. If OLC found a new tenant for a term extending beyond January 15, 2021, it would waive any further liability for the third-floor space as of the date of the replacement lease. After discussion, the buyer agreed over the phone to a two-week extension of Suite 300 at no rent.
On August 2, 2020, OLC emailed the buyer's contract specialist to ask when the SLA would be prepared. The buyer's contract specialist did not respond. Several weeks later, on August 24, the buyer determined that it no longer needed to rent any of the suites under the lease and requested to be released at lease termination. On September 10, OLC once again emailed the buyer's contract specialist to follow up on the preparation of the SLA. This time, the buyer's contract specialist responded, apologized for the delay, and stated that he would try to get the SLA to OLC in the next couple of weeks.
However, on October 26, the buyer's contract specialist informed OLC that the buyer no longer intended to pursue the renewal option, reflecting the buyer's August 24 determination that it no longer required any of the suites under the lease. The following day, on October 27, OLC responded that the buyer had already exercised the renewal option and that it intended to hold the buyer to that agreement.
On June 21, 2021, the buyer notified OLC that its renewal option would not be exercised and that the buyer would not be responsible for any rent payments after the lease expiration date of December 31, 2021.
Following a final decision from the buyer's authorized agent, which rejected the claims that the buyer had exercised the renewal option, OLC filed a claim.
In order to properly exercise an option:
o The option must be accepted;
o Such acceptance may not change, add to, or qualify the terms of the offer; and o The buyer's acceptance has to be unconditional and in exact accord with the terms of the contract being renewed.
Question:
Did the buyer's contract specialist have the authority to exercise the option?

• A. No, because SLA 1 specifically stated that only the buyer's authorized agent could make changes to the lease.
• B. No, because the buyer's contract specialist was not acting with apparent authority.
• C. Yes, because the buyer's contract specialist acted with implied authority by initiating discussion about the renewal option.
• D. Yes, because the renewal option language did not specify who was permitted to exercise this option.

Scenario 6.0: 2
ABC Corporation (ABC) entered into a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a Federal buyer for the purchase of various "Soviet-style" parts. The contract language allowed for changes to:
o Drawings, designs, or specifications when the supplies to be furnished are to be specially manufactured for the buyer; o The method of shipment or packing; and o Place of delivery.
The contract also specified that:
If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether or not changed by the order, the buyer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, and shall modify the contract.
ABC was unable to obtain a particular part required to fulfill a delivery order under the contract, and missed the deadline for delivery. Two years after the deadline passed, with no delivery, the failure provided cause for termination for default under the conditions outlined in the contract. To avoid default, ABC entered into Bilateral Modification 4 with the buyer. The modification required ABC to provide additional parts as consideration for late delivery. The modification also stated that a new delivery date for the original delivery would be determined in another modification.
ABC remained unable to purchase the parts to fulfill the original order. A new modification, Bilateral Modification 7 , provided that ABC would deliver "new production" models of the parts in question, rather than the "new surplus" parts specified in the original delivery order. The idea to deliver new production models of the parts had originated with ABC and was accepted by the buyer. ABC did not attempt to negotiate any changes in price, no discussions of price were held, and no price adjustment was included in this modification.
ABC completed delivery of these parts on time. However, the new production models cost significantly more than the new surplus parts originally ordered.
Approximately four months later, ABC submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA) to the buyer. In the REA, ABC requested $1,369,377.47 , which represented the difference in price between the parts called for by the original delivery order and the parts ABC ultimately delivered. The buyer rejected the request.
Question:
Based on the contract language that specified how the contract would handle changes, was ABC entitled to an equitable adjustment?

• A. Yes, because a change was made to the contract that increased the price.
• B. No, because the change was made in a bilateral modification based on a substitute product offered by the contractor.
• C. Yes, because the buyer agreed to accept "new production" weapons rather than "new surplus" weapons.
• D. No, because no change was made to the specifications, design, or place of delivery.

__________ are final documents and do not evolve.

• A. Contracts
• B. Quality Control Plans
• C. Archives
• D. Records

Scenario 6.0: 2
ABC Corporation (ABC) entered into a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a Federal buyer for the purchase of various "Soviet-style" parts. The contract language allowed for changes to:
o Drawings, designs, or specifications when the supplies to be furnished are to be specially manufactured for the buyer; o The method of shipment or packing; and o Place of delivery.
The contract also specified that:
If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether or not changed by the order, the buyer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, and shall modify the contract.
ABC was unable to obtain a particular part required to fulfill a delivery order under the contract, and missed the deadline for delivery. Two years after the deadline passed, with no delivery, the failure provided cause for termination for default under the conditions outlined in the contract. To avoid default, ABC entered into Bilateral Modification 4 with the buyer. The modification required ABC to provide additional parts as consideration for late delivery. The modification also stated that a new delivery date for the original delivery would be determined in another modification.
ABC remained unable to purchase the parts to fulfill the original order. A new modification, Bilateral Modification 7 , provided that ABC would deliver "new production" models of the parts in question, rather than the "new surplus" parts specified in the original delivery order. The idea to deliver new production models of the parts had originated with ABC and was accepted by the buyer. ABC did not attempt to negotiate any changes in price, no discussions of price were held, and no price adjustment was included in this modification.
ABC completed delivery of these parts on time. However, the new production models cost significantly more than the new surplus parts originally ordered.
Approximately four months later, ABC submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA) to the buyer. In the REA, ABC requested $1,369,377.47 , which represented the difference in price between the parts called for by the original delivery order and the parts ABC ultimately delivered. The buyer rejected the request.
Question:
Does "Bilateral Modification 7" contain constructive changes, entitling ABC to submit the REA?

• A. No, because at the time of agreement, the seller could not have known that it would increase the cost of performance.
• B. No, because the contractor was complying with contract and delivery order specifications.
• C. Yes, because the cost of performance significantly exceeded the contract price.
• D. Yes, because the contractor performed above and beyond the requirements of the contract.