The Court of Appeal also noted that whilst the contractor was bound to take the estimate provided in the environmental statement into account, that estimate was only “one person’s interpretation” of the ground information data taken from the site. The problem however lies in related matters such as the employer’s reluctance and concern about what information it supplies to the contractor, its liability for any defective information it provides, the costs in providing geotechnical information or similar and the fear of being held liable for any claimed “misrepresentations” at a later stage when the contractor is claiming a delay due to unforeseen ground conditions. In court Morrison-Knudsen took the position that the State led it to believe that hydraulic dredging was feasible when it had information proving that it was not. Further, the state did not dissuade Morrison-Knudsen when it became apparent that they would use hydraulic dredging.