Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co.

Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co.

1975 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

• Laclede Gas Company provided propane gas to communities, had requirements contract with Amoco.
• Amoco raised price, Laclede contested price change, then Amoco wrote to terminate contract for ‘lack of mutuality’.
• Contract allowed Laclede to terminate the agreement but not Amoco, thus lower court found lack of mutuality and thus no contract.
• But Laclede wants to buy Amoco’s gas, thus claim that promise was illusory is overruled.
• Four arguments against specific performance: ? No mutuality of remedy
? Supervision of court
? Contract is indefinite and uncertain
? Remedy at law is adequate

• Court reasoned that specific performance was necessary because it would be difficult for Laclede to get another long term contract similar to the one it had with Amoco.
• Court holds that ‘specific performance may be defeated by remedy at law’–reversing the typical burden (assuming specific performance, putting onus on part to establish that remedy at law is adequate).
• Finally, public policy argument, that oil should be delivered to customers as a community necessity.

Conclusion

Notes

See Also

References and Further Reading

About the Author/s and Reviewer/s

Author: international


Posted

in

, , ,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *