Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America
Case Details
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The court held that Marathon Oil was not obligated under the force-majeure clause to purchase replacement gas on the spot market or buy back its delivery obligation, and that the contract's 'reasonable efforts' duty does not encompass buybacks. Marathon's force-majeure declaration was upheld.
Excerpt
In this force-majeure dispute arising out of Winter Storm Uri, parties to a contract for the sale of natural gas dispute whether the seller should have (i) purchased gas on the spot market to cover any production shortfall or (ii) bought back its delivery obligation. The Court holds that the parties' contract did not obligate the seller to take either action as a prerequisite or alternative to declaring force majeure or as a contractually required "reasonable effort." Denying defendant's motion for summary judgment arguing that a contract does not require it to pay royalty payments on "revenues actually received by [the defendant] for final disposal of solid waste in the sanitary landfill operated on the Property," where the disposal is in a part of the landfill that is not on the Property. This opinion addresses whether a party may remove a case concerning trusts from statutory probate court to the business court. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the claims asserted by the plaintiff arise out of Title 9 of the Property Code, and under section 25A.004(g) of the Texas Government Code, this court does not have jurisdiction over such claims unless they are part of the court's supplemental jurisdiction, which requires agreement of the parties. Here, the parties disagreed. In this force-majeure dispute arising out of a contract for the purchase and sale of natural gas based on the North American Energy Standards Board base-contract form, the parties dispute (a) whether the transaction confirmations are part of their contract and (b) which one controls over the other. The Court holds that, although the seller's transaction confirmation identifies a delivery term on which the buyer's confirmation is silent, the two confirmations do not materially conflict. Thus, both transaction confirmations combine with the base contract to form a single, integrated agreement, and neither confirmation trumps the other. This opinion addresses when statutes of limitations
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
More Rulings in This Case
Other orders and opinions in Marathon Oil v. Mercuria Energy America from the same court.
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.