The JM Contracts Text includes an excerpt of TA Operating Corp. v. Solar Applications Engineering, Inc. 191 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005) [Section 9.6, p. 298].  The case concerns a dispute between a building contractor (Solar) and it’s customer (TA) and turns on the interpretation of a contract provision as either a condition precedent or a covenant.  The case in your Text was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court of Texas.  A copy of the Supreme Court decision is here:  Supplement-Solar v TA 327 S.W.3d 104, 106 (Tex. 2010).doc.pdf
 
Actions
 
 
 
 Please read the short excerpt of the Appellate court decision in your Text and then the Supreme Court decision overturning the Appellate court and answer the following questions. 
 
Why did Solar believe it was entitled to the contract balance here?
Why did the Appellate court determine that Solar should not have been awarded the contract damages that it claimed, even though it substantially complied?
What is the essential issue that the Supreme Court decided differently than the Appellate court had?