Legal Opinion
MAPCO Alaska Petroleum, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided December 22, 1992No. 550-89CPublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Pending are cross-motions for summary judgment as to Count I of plaintiff’s complaint. The primary issue raised is whether two economic price adjustment (“EPA”) clauses contained in a fuel supply contract are contrary to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), thus rendering that portion of the contract unenforceable. We find that the EPA clauses employed by the Government were unauthorized, but ruling is deferred as to the ultimate effect of that illegality.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 24, 1986, the Government, acting through the Defense Fuel Supply Center…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Torncello v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1982
- Beta Systems, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Federal Trade Commission v. Sun Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
- The United States v. Amdahl CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- M. Kraus & Bros., Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Barrett Refining Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Tesoro Hawaii Corporation, Tesoro Alaska Company and Hermes Consolidated, Inc., D/B/A Wyoming Refining Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- United States Tobacco Sales & Marketing Co. v. Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
- Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.