Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.

Texas Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1996No. 94-0278Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

PHILLIPS, Chief Justice,

delivered a concurring and dissenting opinion.

I join in parts II, III, and IV of the Court’s opinion. Because I believe that the Gas Purchase Agreement (“GPA”) at issue here is an output contract which is subject to section *5772.306 of the Uniform Commercial Code, however, I cannot join in a decision to reinstate the trial court’s summary judgment. As I explain below, I would remand the ease to the trial court for further proceedings as to whether the Sellers’ increased tender of gas either occurred in bad faith or was unreasonably disproportionate to prior output.

I

Output…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Amoco Production Co. v. AlexanderTexas Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Clifton v. KoontzTexas Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Cos.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Prenalta Corp. v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
  5. Mandell v. Hamman Oil and Refining Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1991

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API