{
  "schemaVersion": "public-citation-audit-v5",
  "methodology": "/benchmarks/README.md",
  "summary": {
    "opinionsAudited": 40,
    "citationReferencesAudited": 94,
    "externalCitationsAudited": 88,
    "syntheticCaseReferences": 6,
    "hallucinatedAuthorities": 0
  },
  "opinions": [
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-001",
      "topic": "Substantial performance / cost-to-complete (Jacob & Youngs v. Kent)",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Spence v. Ham, 163 N.Y. 220 (1900)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241",
        "This case tracks Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement § 241"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-002",
      "topic": "Substantial performance / cost-to-complete (Jacob & Youngs v. Kent)",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "The inquiry does not end there. Under Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241",
        "Jacob & Youngs v. Kent"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-003",
      "topic": "Substantial performance / cost-to-complete (Jacob & Youngs v. Kent)",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "This case is the mirror image of Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241",
        "Jacob & Youngs v. Kent"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-004",
      "topic": "Substantial performance / cost-to-complete (Jacob & Youngs v. Kent)",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Spence v. Ham, 163 N.Y. 220 (1900)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241",
        "Spence v. Ham"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-005",
      "topic": "Impossibility / frustration of purpose (dependency deprecated)",
      "citations": [
        "Mishara Construction Co. v. Transit-Mixed",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261",
        "But as Mishara Construction Co. v. Transit-Mixed",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 377"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-006",
      "topic": "Impossibility / frustration of purpose (dependency deprecated)",
      "citations": [
        "Mishara Construction Co. v. Transit-Mixed",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 377"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-007",
      "topic": "Impossibility / frustration of purpose (dependency deprecated)",
      "citations": [
        "Mishara Construction Co. v. Transit-Mixed",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-008",
      "topic": "Impossibility / frustration of purpose (dependency deprecated)",
      "citations": [
        "Mishara Construction Co. v. Transit-Mixed",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 377",
        "But as Mishara Construction Co. v. Transit-Mixed"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [
        "Checkout Client Corp. v. Ada"
      ],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-009",
      "topic": "Quantum meruit / unjust enrichment for requested extras",
      "citations": [
        "Long Island R.R. Co. v. Northville",
        "Northgate accepted and used them. Under Long Island R.R. Co. v. Northville, 41 N.Y.2d 455 (1977)"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-010",
      "topic": "Quantum meruit / unjust enrichment for requested extras",
      "citations": [
        "SOW's scope. Under Long Island R.R. Co. v. Northville",
        "Long Island R.R. Co. v. Northville"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-011",
      "topic": "Quantum meruit / unjust enrichment for requested extras",
      "citations": [
        "Long Island R.R. Co. v. Northville"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-012",
      "topic": "Quantum meruit / unjust enrichment for requested extras",
      "citations": [
        "Long Island R.R. Co. v. Northville",
        "Northgate accepted and used them. Under Long Island R.R. Co. v. Northville"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [
        "NORTHGATE RETAIL CO. v. PILCROW"
      ],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-013",
      "topic": "Satisfaction clauses — objective vs. subjective standard",
      "citations": [
        "Objective satisfaction standard under Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 228",
        "New York law confirms this reading. In Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Jacob & Youngs v. Kent"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-014",
      "topic": "Satisfaction clauses — objective vs. subjective standard",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 228",
        "New York law answers this clearly. Under Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-015",
      "topic": "Satisfaction clauses — objective vs. subjective standard",
      "citations": [
        "Objective satisfaction condition under Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 228",
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent",
        "Jacob & Youngs v. Kent"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-016",
      "topic": "Satisfaction clauses — objective vs. subjective standard",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 228"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [
        "LUMEN BRANDS INC. v. COBALT"
      ],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-017",
      "topic": "Acceptance by silence / course of dealing",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-018",
      "topic": "Acceptance by silence / course of dealing",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-019",
      "topic": "Acceptance by silence / course of dealing",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-020",
      "topic": "Acceptance by silence / course of dealing",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-021",
      "topic": "Liquidated damages vs. unenforceable penalty",
      "citations": [
        "New York's two-part test from Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Puritan",
        "Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Puritan"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-022",
      "topic": "Liquidated damages vs. unenforceable penalty",
      "citations": [
        "New York's two-part test from Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Puritan",
        "The controlling authority is Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Puritan"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-023",
      "topic": "Liquidated damages vs. unenforceable penalty",
      "citations": [
        "Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Puritan"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-024",
      "topic": "Liquidated damages vs. unenforceable penalty",
      "citations": [
        "Truck Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Puritan"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [
        "VANTAGE EVENTS INC. v. SUMMIT"
      ],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-025",
      "topic": "Material breach vs. immaterial deviation (right to withhold)",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-026",
      "topic": "Material breach vs. immaterial deviation (right to withhold)",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-027",
      "topic": "Material breach vs. immaterial deviation (right to withhold)",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241",
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent",
        "Jacob & Youngs v. Kent"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-028",
      "topic": "Material breach vs. immaterial deviation (right to withhold)",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241",
        "Restatement § 241"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-029",
      "topic": "Waiver / estoppel of a strict contract term",
      "citations": [
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-030",
      "topic": "Waiver / estoppel of a strict contract term",
      "citations": [
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-031",
      "topic": "Waiver / estoppel of a strict contract term",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-032",
      "topic": "Waiver / estoppel of a strict contract term",
      "citations": [
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-033",
      "topic": "Unjust enrichment / restitution absent an enforceable contract",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-034",
      "topic": "Unjust enrichment / restitution absent an enforceable contract",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-035",
      "topic": "Unjust enrichment / restitution absent an enforceable contract",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-036",
      "topic": "Unjust enrichment / restitution absent an enforceable contract",
      "citations": [],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [
        "ORCHARD VENTURES LLC v. RIDGELINE"
      ],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-037",
      "topic": "Document hierarchy / order-of-precedence and integration",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 202",
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202",
        "Restatement § 213"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-038",
      "topic": "Document hierarchy / order-of-precedence and integration",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs v. Kent",
        "Restatement § 202",
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 201"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-039",
      "topic": "Document hierarchy / order-of-precedence and integration",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202",
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent",
        "Restatement § 202"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    },
    {
      "auditId": "opinion-040",
      "topic": "Document hierarchy / order-of-precedence and integration",
      "citations": [
        "Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 N.Y. 239 (1921)",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 213",
        "Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 201"
      ],
      "syntheticCaseReferences": [
        "ATLAS MANUFACTURING CORP. v. KEYSTONE"
      ],
      "hallucinatedAuthorities": []
    }
  ]
}