ASBCA Holds that Transmission Emails are "Part of the Same Transaction" as Mods for Plain Meaning Purposes
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.24.19
Can contractors reserve rights in a transmission email while executing a contract modification that is silent on such reservation? The ASBCA recently affirmed again that yes, contractors can. In NMS Management, Inc., ASBCA No. 61519 (Apr. 11, 2019), a dispute over the “improper attempt at a partial exercise” of an option period, the ASBCA rejected the Government’s argument that NMS was strictly bound by the terms of a signed bilateral modification – viewed in isolation – because NMS’s accompanying transmission email stated that it was signing under protest. The ASBCA clarified the plain meaning rule by citing precedent that the “interpretation of a contract as a whole requires consideration of all documents that are part of the same transaction together.” The Board held that “the [transmission] email dispels any notion that Modification No. P00011 is the only writing to consider when evaluating the legal consequences of the modification.”
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.26.26
FERC Requires Refunds for Late QF Recertification
On February 19, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Branch Street Solar Partners, LLC et al., 194 FERC ¶ 61,124 (2026) rejecting the refund reports filed in connection with the late filing of recertifications of qualifying facility (QF) status by certain affiliated companies to reflect a change in upstream ownership. FERC’s rearticulation of QF recertification timing requirements and consequences for late QF recertifications has broad and substantial implications for all QF owners.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.26.26
Client Alert | 6 min read | 02.24.26
Artificial Intelligence and Human Resources in the EU: a 2026 Legal Overview
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.24.26
DOJ v. OhioHealth Confirms Antitrust Enforcers’ Continued Focus on Health Care Markets




