We have carefully reviewed the record and considered the briefs of the parties and argument of counsel. Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its careful Memorandum Opinion and Order of February 6, 2007, we agree with that court that Change Order 10 to the contract between the parties is unambiguous and precludes appellant’s claim for lease payments after appellant is notified that a leased asset has been lost or destroyed.

We also agree with the district court’s analysis rejecting appellant’s alternative claim based on fraudulent inducement, mutual mistake and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Finally, the equitable adjustment issue raised by appellant is without merit.

We, therefore, AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.