Page:Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. (2010) slip opinion.pdf/22

18

would, moreover, have been a foolish understanding, since the regional monopoly to recoup construction costs would not be a monopoly if South Carolina withdrew and contin­ued to operate its facility—which is exactly what hap­pened in 1995. Even leaving aside the principle, dis­cussed infra, at 21, that implied obligations are not to be read into interstate compacts, 's intuition fails to reflect the reality of what was implied.

Plaintiffs take exception to the Special Master's rejec­tion of their alternative argument that North Carolina repudiated the Compact when it announced it would not take further steps toward obtaining a license. They argue that North Carolina's announcement that it was shutting down the project constituted a refusal to tender any fur­ther performance under the contract.

Plaintiffs' repudiation theory fails for the same reasons their breach theory fails. A repudiation occurs when an obligor either informs an obligee "that the obligor will